PI] 


i 


iiii; 


|Ej||[]jTjfriHlfiiJ^ 


THE  LIBRARIES 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


i 

|[5iruTJ[rin3rRnilrinJnmlffml[^ 


I 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

i 


THE 

CATASTROPHE 

OF    THE 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH, 

IN  1837, 

INCLUDING  A  FULL  VIEW  OF  THE  RECENT 
THEOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES  IN  NEW  ENGLAND. 


BY  ZEBULON  CROCKER, 

DELEGATE  FROM  THE  GENERAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  CONNECTICUT 

TO   THE 

GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  1837. 


NEW  HAVEN: 

B.   &  W.    NOYES. 

1838. 


<=!3^.i  1 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1838, 
By  ZEBULON  CROCKER, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut. 


Printed  by  B.  L.  Hamlen. 


PREFACE, 


The  author  of  this  work,  on  his  return  from  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837,  proposed  to  publish  in  a 
religious  newspaper,  a  brief  history  of  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  the  causes  of  its  abrogation.  He  was 
advised,  however,  to  adopt  the  pamphlet  form,  or 
make  use  of  the  pages  of  some  periodical  of  a  more 
permanent  character.  On  proceeding  to  investigate 
the  subject  with  this  design,  he  found  it  so  exten- 
sive as  not  to  be  easily  compressed  within  the  nar- 
row limits  commonly  assigned  to  articles  in  religious 
magazines ;  and  he  finally  concluded  to  give  to  the 
public,  a  small  volume,  in  which  the  recent  contro- 
versies in  New  England,  should  be  fully  exhibited. 
In  presenting  this  part  of  the  subject,  two  modes 
occurred,  each  of  which  appeared  to  possess  pecuUar 
advantages  as  well  as  disadvantages.  The  one  was, 
to  give  a  concise  statement,  entirely  in  his  own  lan- 
guage, of  the  positions  maintained  by  different  wri- 


i  Q^-^'  \-i  ') 


v^ 


■M-     *>.! 


IV  PREFACE. 

ters  in  the  discussion  j  the  other  was,  to  exhibit  more 
fully,  not  only  the  main  positions,  but  the  arguments 
by  which  they  were  supported,  with  copious  extracts 
from  the  original  articles.  The  latter  mode  is  the 
one  principally  pursued  in  this  volume.  While  this 
mode  is  less  concise  than  the  other,  and  often  makes 
it  necessary  to  repeat  the  statement  of  the  points  in 
debate,  it  will  be  found  to  have  an  important  advan- 
tage, in  giving  the  reader  an  extensive  acquaintance 
with  the  subject.  It  has  not  been  thought  advisable 
in  all  instances  to  denote  by  marks  of  quotation,  parts 
of  sentences  and  expressions,  introduced  from  the 
different  writers.  In  stating  their  opinions,  free  use 
has  been  made  of  their  language,  without  particular 
marks  to  denote  it. 

The  author  has  had  no  desire  to  conceal  his  own 
views  on  the  controverted  topics.  Having  read  with 
attention  the  writings  on  both  sides,  and  having  in 
general,  as  he  thinks,  succeeded  in  understanding 
them,  he  has  been  frank  to  express  what  are  his  own 
convictions,  whenever  truth  seemed  to  require  him 
to  do  it.  The  difference,  however,  between  the 
New  Haven  divines  and  their  opponents,  he  regards 
as  trivial,  compared  with  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
gospelj  all  of  which  they  hold  in  common ;  nor  does 


PREF  ACE.  V 

he  see  the  least  cause,  on  the  ground  of  theological 
sentiment,  for  strife  or  alienation.  In  expressing  his 
opinion  of  the  measures  of  the  majority  of  the  last 
General  Assembly,  and  of  the  opposers  of  New 
Haven  in  Connecticut,  and  in  estimating  the  argu- 
ments of  different  writers,  rank,  and  age,  and  influ- 
ence in  the  church,  and  acknowledged  worth,  have 
not  been  prominently  before  his  mind ;  but  the  qual- 
ity of  the  measures  and  arguments  themselves.  Nor 
does  he  feel  much  concern  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  this  volume  shall  be  received,  by  any  por- 
tion of  the  public.  He  is  content  to  know  that  it 
contains  historical  truth,  and  to  believe,  that  it  is 
important  for  the  future  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
church,  that  the  subjects  on  which  he  has  written, 
should  be  presented  in  a  more  condensed  form,  than 
they  are  found  in  the  voluminous  documents,  which 
he  has  been  obliged  to  consult,  in  preparing  this 
volume  for  the  press. 

Middletown,  Con.,  April,  1838. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS. 

Page. 
Proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  awaken  general 
interest — Their  importance  to  the  Congregational  churches — 
Exscinding  and  excluding  resolutions,         ....         1 

CHAPTER  H. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    PLAN    OF    UNION. 

Origin  of  the  Plan  of  Union— Settlement  of  the  Western 
States— Union  of  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians- 
Early  Missions  to  the  New  Settlements — The  Plan  of  Union 
— It  is  a  compact — It  is  binding — It  respects  churches  in  the 
new  settlements — Illustrated  by  a  marriage  contract,  .        6 

CHAPTER  III. 

ABROGATION    OF    THE    PLAN    OF    UNION. 

Reasons  assigned  for  the  abrogation — Alledged  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  Plan  of  Union — Plan  of  Union  not  constitu- 
tional rules — Duty  of  the  Assembly  to  send  down  the  Plan — 
No  advantage  to  be  taken  from  the  neglect — The  Plan  if  un- 
constitutional is  not  to  be  abrogated — Abrogation  morally 
reprehensible, 21 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ABROGATION    OF    THE    PLAN    OF    UNION. 

Second  reason  for  the  abrogation  considered — General  As- 
sociation not  a  voluntary  association — An  incorporated  Mis- 
sionary Society — Competent  to  be  a  party — Legal  qualifica- 
tions not  necessary  to  moral  obligation — General  Assembly 
contradicts  its  own  practice, 31 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

ABROGATION    OF    THE    PLAN    OF    UNION. 

Page. 
Third  reason  assigned  for  the  abrogation — Plan  of  Union 

alledged  as  a  cause  of  irregularity — What  they  mean  by  irreg- 
ularity— The  reasons  for  abrogation  insufficient — Liberality 
of  the  General  Association — Good  effects  of  the  Plan  of 
Union — True  reasons  for  the  abrogation,     ....      38 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

Adopting  act — Two  parties  in  the  Presbyterian  church — 
The  church  divided— College  of  New  Jersey— Reunion  of 
the  synods — Parties  the  same, 47 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

CAUSES    UNITING    THE    MAJORITY    OF    THE    ASSEMBLY. 

Causes  classified — Slavery  and  Abolition — General  As- 
sembly on  slavery — Testimony  of  the  Biblical  Repertory — 
Assembly  of  1836  on  slavery — Presbytery  of  Harmony — Sy- 
nod of  Virginia — Exscinding  synods — Synod  of  Cincinnati — 
Action  of  the  Assembly  on  slavery  deprecated — Mutual  un- 
derstanding on  the  subject — Not  discussed  in  the  Assembly 
ofl837, 55 

CHAPTER  Vni. 

ENCROACHMENTS  ON  HIGH  CHURCH  PREROGATIVES  FEARED. 

The  church  in  her  distinctive  character — The  standards  of 
the  church,  how  regarded — Difference  among  Old  School,       71 

CHAPTER  IX. 

DIFFERENCE  IN  THEOLOGY  BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  SCHOOL. 

Adam  the  head  of  our  race — Nature  and  extent  of  the 
Atonement — Man's  inability — Doctrinal  belief  of  the  New 
School — Connection  with  Adam — Unlimited  atonement — 
Man  an  accountable  agent — Progress  of  the  New  School 


CONTENTS.  IX 

Page, 
opinions — Alarm  of  the  Old  School — Mr.  Barnes's  Sermon — 

Proceedings  respecting  his  call — Sermon  tried — Case  before 

the  Assembly — Duffield  on  Regeneration — Examination  by 

presbytery — Errors  reported — Book  condemned — Mr.  Duf- 


/o 


CHAPTER  X. 

ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS. 

Matters  of  complaint — Errors  testified  against — Resolu- 
tions of  the  Assembly  of  1834 — Act  and  Testimony — Meas- 
ures recommended — Biblical  Repertory — Pittsburgh  con- 
vention— Assembly  of  1835 — Resolutions  on  doctrinal  er- 
rors— Old  School  party  encouraged, 92 

CHAPTER  XI. 

TRIALS  OF  REV.  ALBERT  BARNES  AND  LYMAN  BEECHER,  D.  D., 
FOR  HERESY. 

Charges  against  Mr.  Barnes — His  acquittal  by  the  presby- 
tery— His  trial  by  the  Synod — Suspension  and  restoration  by 
the  General  Assembly — Trial  of  Dr.  Beecher — His  admis- 
sion to  the  presbytery  of  Cincinnati  opposed — He  is  accused 
by  Dr.  Wilson — Charges  preferred — His  defense  and  acquit- 
tal— Effects  of  these  trials — Philadelphia  Convention — Me- 
morial to  the  Assembly  of  1337 — Proceedings  of  the  Assem- 
bly,       101 

CHAPTER  Xn. 

THE    NEW    HAVEN    CONTROVERSY. 

The  Presbyterian  church  affected  by  discussions  in  New 
England — Reputed  errors  introduced  by  the  Plan  of  Union 
— Prof  Fitch's  Sermons — Their  doctrines — Review  in  the 
Christian  Advocate — Inquiry  and  reply — Moral  disposition 
resolvable  into  immanent  preference,  ....     113 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

CONTROVERSY    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR    AND    MR.    HARVEY. 

What  occasioned  the  Concio — Its  doctrines — Mr.  Harvey's 
review — His  views  of  depravity,  and  the  permission  of  sin — 


X  C  ONTENT  S. 

Review  of  Taylor  and  Harvey — Reasons  why  unguarded 
statements  are  made  on  the  subject  of  depravity — Mr.  Har- 
vey's second  pamphlet — He  abandons  his  original  ground — 
His  views  of  moral  agency — Dr.  Dwight  regards  sin  as  con- 
sisting in  preference — Mr.  Harvey's  new  doctrine  of  deprav- 
ity— The  cause  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  man,     .         .     121 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

CONTROVERSY    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR    AND    DR.    TYLER. 

Review  of  Spring  on  Regeneration — Regeneration  not  a 
physical  change — Suspension  of  the  selfish  principle — Use 
of  means — The  performance  of  duty  practicable — Positions 
maintained  by  Dr.  Tyler — Sinners  never  use  the  means  of 
regeneration — Selfish  principle  not  suspended — Sin  and  ho- 
liness— Dependence  and  obligation — Queries  proposed  by 
Dr.  Tyler — He  charges  Dr.  Taylor  with  inconsistency — 
Review  of  the  strictures — Doctrines  explained — All  actions 
dictated  by  self-love — Dr.  Tyler's  second  pamphlet — The 
reply, 138 

CHAPTER  XV. 

CONTROVERSY    WITH    DR.    WOODS. 

His  statement  of  Dr.  Taylor's  theory — His  views  of  the 
permission  of  sin — Sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good — His  grounds  of  alarm — His  questions  to  Dr.  Taylor- 
Review  of  Dr.  Woods's  Letters — Dr.  Woods  misstates  Dr 
Taylor's  position — Has  conceded  it — His  scheme  inconsis 
tent — He  confounds  several  things  and  evades  the  points  in 
debate— The  fallacy  of  his  reasonings— His  invidious  remarks 
— What  Dr.  Taylor  maintained — Failure  of  Dr.  Woods's  ar- 
gument to  meet  the  position, 15Q 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

SECOND    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR    AND    DR.    TYLER, 

Dr.  Taylor's  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes — His  creed — Dr.  Tyler 
charges  him  with  subverting  the  doctrine  of  decrees — ofori- 


CONTENTS.  XI 

Page. 
ginal  sin — of  Regeneration — of  Election — The  charges  re- 
futed by  Dr.  Taylor — Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  theories  of  de- 
pravity and  the  permission  of  sin, 174 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR    AND    DR.  TYLER    CONTINUED. 

Dr.  Tyler's  explanation  of  his  theories — Dr.  Taylor's  let- 
ter to  the  Editor  of  the  Spectator — He  claims  that  he  and 
Dr.  Tyler  are  now  agreed — Dr.  Tyler  disclaims  such  agree- 
ment— The  nine  points  of  difference — All  unimportant — 
These  differences  explained, 193 

CHAPTER  XVIH. 

DISCUSSION    ON    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    DIVINE    PURPOSES. 

Review  of  Fisk — Point  at  issue — Predestination  consistent 
with  freedom  of  volition — Doctrine  of  Election  respects  men 
as  sinners — Includes  the  purpose  to  produce  holiness  in  the 
elect — Dr.  Lee's  letters — Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency — His 
interpretation  of  the  New  Haven  doctrines — His  misstate- 
ments of  them — In  regard  to  God's  controlling  power — The 
work  of  the  Spirit — Self-determination — Views  of  Dr.  Griffin 
and  the  New  Haven  divines  compared — On  divine  efficien- 
cy— ^Moral  agency — Permission  of  sin — Predestination  and 
Election, 202 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

DR.    SPRING    AND    DR.    WOODS    ON    NATIVE    DEPRAVITY. 

How  Dr.  Spring  regards  the  New  Haven  views — His  opin- 
ion of  infants — He  considers  all  sin  voluntary — He  misstates 
the  New  Haven  divines — His  treatise  reviewed — He  differs 
from  Calvinists  in  general — Dr.  Woods's  Prize  Essay — Its 
doctrines — Propagated  sinfulness — Depravity  voluntary — In- 
fants suffer  because  guilty — How  Dr.  Woods  differs  from 
the  New  Haven  divines — The  Theological  opinions  of  New 
Haven  spread  in  the  Presbyterian  church — Mr.  Lord's 
"Views  in  Theology" — Mr.  Nettleton  and  Mr.  Finney — 
New  Measures, 217 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

MEASURES    IN    CONNECTICUT    TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN   VIEWS. 

Page. 
Doctrinal  Tract  Society  organized — Evangelical  Magazine 

— Letters  of  *'  An  Edwardean" — Hartford  Convention — East 
Windsor  Convention — "Address  by  an  Observer" — Theo- 
logical Institute — Mr.  Dow's  Report — Proceedings  in  the 
Corporation  of  Yale  College — Statement  of  the  Theological 
Professors — Their  doctrines — Appeal  of  the  Trustees  of  the 
Theological  Institute — Their  grounds  of  dissatisfaction — 
Second  statement  of  the  Professors — Their  remarks  on  the 
doctrines  said  to  be  subverted — Measures  for  restoring  har- 
mony,   234 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

DR.   TVLER's    letters    TO    DR.    WITHERSPOON. 

The  authorship,  how  discovered — Are  they  a  true  history 
— Their  misrepresentations  of  doctrines — Their  omissions — 
Their  insinuations — They  give  a  false  impression  respecting 
differences  of  opinion — Their  appeal  to  names — Why  were 
they  written, 269 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

Brief  view  of  the  subjects  discussed — The  two  points  of 
inquiry — Different  positions  respecting  the  nature  of  man — 
What  is  the  nature  of  infants — The  certainty  that  mankind 
will  become  sinners — The  nature  of  regeneration — The  turn- 
ing point  of  the  controversy — Second  topic  of  discussion — 
How  does  God  govern  the  moral  universe — Is  he  not  disap- 
pointed and  unhappy — Treatment  of  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines— Wonderful  results  of  the  controversy — The  cause — 
Restoration  of  confidence — Suggestions  to  the  Congregation- 
al churches  and  younger  ministers, 284 

APPENDIX. 

List  of  publications  in  reference  to  the  Unitarian  controversy,  298 
Do.  do.          on  the  New  Haven  controversy,       .     .    299 


CATASTROPHE 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH    IN    1837. 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY      OBSERVATIONS. 
Proceedings  of  the  Assembly  awaken  general  interest. 

The  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  1837,  have  awakened  an  in- 
tense interest  in  the  pubhc  mind.  The  transactions 
of  no  other  ecclesiastical  body  convened  in  the  Uni- 
ted States,  have  probably  excited  so  general  atten- 
tion, or  Ccilled  forth  so  strong  an  expression  of  feeling 
from  all  classes  of  the  community,  as  those  of  that 
Assembly.  Scarcely  a  man,  woman,  or  child,  in  this 
nation,  at  all  acquainted  with  passing  events,  has  re- 
mained so  indifferent  a  spectator  of  the  acts  in  ques- 
tion, as  not  to  have  passed  judgment  upon  them,  and 
to  have  sympathized  with  one  or  the  other  of  the 
parties  in  the  contest.  The  reason  is  obvious.  The 
Assembly  of  1837  used  its  unrivaled  authority  in 
such  a  manner,  as  to  affect  the  rights,  the  privile- 
1 


INTRODUCTORY      OBSERVATIONS. 


Their  importance  to  the  Congregational  churches. 

ges,  and  the  opinions,  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
inhabitants  of  this  nation.  In  addition  to  the  dis- 
memberment of  its  own  body,  it  struck  a  blow  at 
benevolent  institutions,  long  cherished  and  highly 
valued  by  multitudes,  who  had  made  them  the 
channel  of  communicating  blessings  to  their  fel- 
low-men ;  and  it  aimed,  not  only  to  destroy  existing 
relations  in  the  churches  under  its  care,  but  to  sever 
the  bonds  of  union,  which,  for  many  years,  had  ex- 
isted between  itself  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
as  the  ground  of  friendly  intercourse  and  cheerful 
cooperation  in  the  work  of  spreading  the  gospel. 
No  wonder,  then,  that  its  proceedings  have  caused 
a  deep  sensation  in  many  minds ;  no  wonder  that 
they  have  agitated  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  pro- 
duced an  uncommon  excitement  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 

To  the  Congregational  churches  of  New  Eng- 
land, the  measures  adopted  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1837  are  so  directly  important,  as  to  demand, 
on  their  part,  a  careful  investigation.  The  acts  of 
that  body  are  calculated,  in  some  degree,  to  embar- 
rass and  limit  the  operations  of  their  benevolent  so- 
cieties, and  deeply  to  affect  the  numerous  churches 
already  planted  by  their  agency,  and,  by  agreement, 
brought  into  ecclesiastical  connection  with  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  The  foundation  of  their  confi- 
dence has  thus  been  shaken,  and  they  are  left  in 


INTRODUCTORY      OBSERVATIONS.  6 

Exscinding  and  excluding  Resolutions. 

suspense  in  regard  to  the  proper  method  of  prose- 
cuting, in  future,  the  work  of  domestic  missions 
among  their  brethren  at  the  west.  Should  these 
acts  be  persisted  in  and  enforced,  the  result  would 
be  a  lasting  sense  of  injury  and  injustice  in  the 
hearts  of  those  whose  reliance  has  been  misplaced, 
and  who,  in  consequence,  are  compelled,  with  some 
disadvantage,  to  change  their  mode  of  action. 

Intelligent  Congregationalists  in  New  England, 
therefore,  cannot  but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the 
measures  referred  to  ;  nor  will  they  be  satisfied  till 
they  have  investigated  the  whole  subject,  in  order 
to  discover  whether  there  existed  any  good  and 
sufficient  reasons,  why  these  measures  should  be 
adopted. 

The  principal  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1 837  claim- 
ing attention,  are  those  which  relate  to  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801 ;  the  excision  of 
the  synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  Genesee,  and  the 
Western  Reserve  ;  and  the  exclusion  of  the  Ameri- 
can Home  Missionary  Society  and  the  American 
Education  Society  from  the  bounds  of  the  Presby- 
terian church.  The  history  of  these  acts  is  already 
written  in  detail,  and  so  widely  circulated,  through 
the  medium  of  the  religious  periodicals,  as  to  be  in 
the  possession  of  the  great  mass  of  readers. 

For  the  sake  of  easy  reference,  however,  the  ex- 
scinding and  excluding  resolutions  will  here  be 


4     INTRODUCTORY   OBSERVATIONS. 

Exscinding  and  excluding  Resolutions. 

given.     The  act  of  abrogation  will  be  inserted  in 
another  place. 

"  Resolved^  That,  by  the  operation  of  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Reserve  is,  and  is  hereby  declared  to 
be,  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  States  of  America." 

"  Resolved^  That  while  we  desire  that  no  body  of 
christian  men  of  other  denominations  should  be 
prevented  from  choosing  their  own  plans  of  doing 
good,  £ind  while  we  claim  no  right  to  complain, 
should  they  exceed  us  in  energy  and  zeal,  we  be- 
lieve, that  facts  too  familiar  to  need  repetition  here, 
warrant  us  in  affirming,  that  the  organization  and 
operations  of  the  so  called  American  Home  Mission- 
ary Society,  and  American  Education  Society,  and 
its  branches,  of  whatever  name,  are  exceedingly  in- 
jurious to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
church. 

We  recommend,  accordingly,  that  they  should 
cease  to  operate  within  any  of  our  churches." 

"  Be  it  resolved  hy  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amei^- 
ica,  That  in  consequence  of  the  abrogation,  by  this 
Assembly,  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  between 
it  and  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  as 
utterly  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning,  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Gene- 


INTRODUCTORY      OBSERVATIONS.  5 

Exscinding  and  excluding  Resolutions. 

va,  and  Genesee,  which  were  formed  and  attached 
to  this  body,  under  and  in  execution  of  said  ''  Plan 
of  Union,"  be,  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be,  out 
of  the  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that 
they  are  not,  in  form  or  in  fact,  an  integral  portion 
of  said  church."* 

*  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  pp.  440,  442,  444. 


1* 


CHAPTER    II. 

HISTORY     OF     THE     PLAN     OF     UNION. 

Origin  of  the  Plan  of  Union. 

The  several  acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  which 
were  named  in  the  preceding  chapter,  are  closely 
connected,  being  parts  of  a  scheme  intended  to  ac- 
complish a  general  object.  That  object  will  be  fully 
developed  in  the  following  pages  of  this  work. 

As  the  abrogation  of  the  "  Plan  of  Union"  was 
a  leading  act,  and  the  basis  of  the  subsequent  meas- 
ures of  the  Assembly ;  and  as  the  Congregationed 
churches  of  Connecticut,  especially,  and  those  of 
other  parts  of  New  England,  generally,  are  inter- 
ested in  the  subject ;  this  Plan,  and  that  part  of  the 
Assembly's  proceedings  which  relate  to  it,  will  be 
more  particularly  discussed  in  the  former  part  of 
this  volume :  while  the  latter  part  will  be  princi- 
pally devoted  to  an  inquiry  respecting  the  causes 
which  have  operated  to  produce  the  late  catastrophe 
of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

To  understand  the  origin  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try some  time  previous  to  its  adoption.  Till  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  last  century,  the  western  part 


PLAN     OF     UNION. 

Settlement  of  the  Western  States. 


of  New  York,  and  the  States  lying  north  of  the  Ohio 
river,  were  almost  a  wilderness  without  white  in- 
habitants. The  oldest  town  in  Western  New  York 
was  settled  in  1784,  and  the  first  settlement  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  was  made  four  years  later.  In  1800, 
the  population  of  Indiana  was  less  than  5000,  and 
that  of  Illinois  was  only  215. 

The  first  settlers  of  Western  New  York  and  of 
Ohio  were  emigrants  from  New  England.  With 
them,  other  emigrants  mingled  from  the  southern 
and  middle  States,  and  from  Europe.  The  New 
Englanders  Avere  mostly  Congregation alists ;  some 
members  of  churches,  and  all  educated  in  the  prin- 
ciples and  practice  of  their  puritan  ancestors.  They 
of  course  carried  with  them  to  their  new  residences, 
predilections  for  Congregationalism ;  while  the  emi- 
grants from  regions  where  Presbyterianism  pre- 
vailed, having  imbibed  views  of  church  govern- 
ment according  to  that  system,  retained  their  at- 
tachment to  the  pecuHarities  of  their  own  church. 

On  all  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  such  as 
are  essential  to  salvation,  Congregationalists  and 
Presbyterians  held  a  common  faith ;  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  new  settlers  were  calculated  to 
mitigate  sectarian  feelings,  and  remove  partialities 
and  prejudices  in  regard  to  questions  merely  of  or- 
der and  discipline. 


PLAN     OF     UNION. 


Union  of  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians. 

Still  attached  to  the  institutions  of  religion,  but 
deprived  of  the  privileges  which  they  once  enjoyed  : 
too  few  and  feeble  to  provide  separately  for  the  sta- 
ted ministrations  of  the  word,  and  unable  by  any 
means  to  procure  the  requisite  supply  of  ministers  ; 
they  were  prepared  to  lay  aside  all  contention  about 
minor  differences  of  opinion,  and,  for  the  general 
good,  to  unite,  under  a  modified  system  of  disci- 
pline, in  the  bonds  of  a  common  fellowship. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  pious  relatives  and  friends 
of  the  emigrants,  in  the  land  of  their  nativity,  were 
not  unmindful  of  their  spiritual  wants.  The  sym- 
pathy and  prayers  of  christians  followed  into  the 
wilderness,  whither  they  had  gone,  these  voluntary 
exiles  from  the  temples  and  homes  of  their  child- 
hood. Missionaries,  both  Congregational  and  Pres- 
byterian, began  to  visit  the  new  settlements,  and 
to  seek  out,  in  their  scattered  habitations,  those  who 
were  destitute  of  the  bread  of  life. 

The  subject  of  missions  to  the  new  settlements 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  as  early  as  the  year  1788.  Previous 
to  this  time,  some  of  the  district  associations  had 
delegated  individuals  of  their  own  number  to  labor, 
for  the  period  of  a  few  months,  in  the  destitute  re- 
gions of  the  West,  where  members  of  their  own 
churches  resided  ;  and  the  pulpits  of  those  delegated, 
during  their  absence,  were  supplied,  in  rotation,  by 


PLAN     OF     UNION. 


Early  Missions  to  the  New  Settlements. 


the  Other  members  of  the  association.  This  prac- 
tice the  General  Association  of  1788  approved,  and 
recommended  its  continuance.  In  1792,  it  took  the 
subject  into  further  consideration,  and  petitioned  the 
legislature  for  authority  to  make  collections  annu- 
ally for  missions,  in  the  congregations  throughout 
the  State.  The  petition  was  granted,  and  a  resolve 
was  passed,  authorizing  collections  in  the  month  of 
May,  for  three  successive  years.  This  resolve  was 
several  times  repeated ;  and  the  contributions  made 
in  accordance  with  it,  were,  for  a  long  time,  the 
principal  pecuniary  support  of  this  branch  of  the 
missionary  enterprise. 

In  1798,  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut 
organized  itself  into  a  missionary  society,  the  object 
of  which  was,  "  to  christianize  the  heathen  in  North 
America,  and  to  support  and  promote  christian 
knowledge  in  the  new  settlements  within  the  Uni- 
ted States."  In  1802,  the  trustees  of  the  society 
were  incorporated  by  the  legislature  of  Connecticut ; 
and  under  the  charter  then  received,  its  operations 
have  ever  since  been  conducted. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  also,  was  early  interested  in  the  subject  of 
domestic  missions.  It  was  not,  however,  till  1801, 
that  it  appointed  its  first  standing  committee  on  mis- 
sions, and  was  incorporated  as  a  missionary  society, 
by  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania.     In  its  report  on 


10  PLANOFUNION. 

Early  Missions  to  the  New  Settlements. 

the  State  of  religion,  at  its  session  in  1801,  it  uses 
the  following  language.  "  The  new  settlements  on 
our  frontiers  appear  very  desirous  to  have  the  gospel 
preached  among  them,  and  our  missionaries  who 
have  visited  them,  do  not  appear  to  have  labored 
without  success.  Good  impressions  have  not  un- 
frequently  been  made,  and  churches  are  rapidly 
forming,  which  will  soon  need  settled  pastors," 

In  this  manner,  missionaries  were  sent  into  the 
same  field  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ,  by  two 
ecclesiastical  bodies  who  agreed  in  doctrines  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  and,  though  differing  in  their  form 
of  government,  were  on  terms  of  friendly  inter- 
course with  each  other.  In  such  a  state  of  things, 
it  appeared  unnecessary  and  undesirable  to  form  sep- 
arate churches,  merely  on  the  ground  of  order  and 
disciphne ;  and  those  best  acquainted  with  the 
subject  deemed  it  practicable,  on  some  plan  of  ac- 
commodation conformed  in  a  measure  to  the  predi- 
lections of  both  parties,  to  bring  the  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists  in  the  new  settlements  into 
an  amicable  union. 

Dr.  Edwards,  then  president  of  Union  College, 
feeling  a  deep  interest  on  this  subject,  proposed  it 
to  the  General  Assembly  of  1801,  and,  as  chairman 
of  a  committee,  consisting,  in  addition  to  himself, 
of  Drs.  McKnight,  Woodhull,  and  Blatchford,  late 
of  Lansingburgh,  and  Mr.  Hutton,  a  ruling  elder  of 


PLAN      OF      UNION.  11 


The  Plan  of  Union. 


the  presbytery  of  Troy,  reported  the  ''  Plan  of  Un- 
ion between  Presbyterians  and  Congregationahsts 
in  the  new  settlements,"  which  was  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  with  great  unanimity,  and  sent  by  their 
delegates  to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut, 
for  its  acceptance.  The  Association  agreed  to  the 
plan  as  proposed ;  and  thus  ratified,  it  became  a 
standing  regulation,  between  the  two  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  in  conducting  their  missionary  operations. 

The  Plan  of  Union  being  an  important  document, 
in  its  connection  with  the  history  of  the  times,  it  is 
here  inserted. 

*•  Jl  Plan  of  Union  between  Preshyth-ians  and  Congregationalists 
in  the  JVew  Settlements,  adopted  in  1801.* 

"  The  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to  con- 
sider and  digest  a  plan  of  government  for  the  church- 
es in  the  new  settlements,  was  taken  up  and  con- 
sidered ;  and  after  mature  deliberation  on  the  same, 
approved,  as  follows : 

'■'■  Regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  America,  and  by  the 
General  Association  of  the  State  of  Connecticut, 
(provided  said  Association  agree  to  them,)  with  a 
view  to  prevent  alienation  and  promote  union  and 
harmony,  in  those  new  settlements  which  are  com- 
posed of  inhabitants  from  those  bodies. 

*  From  the  Assembly's  Digest,  page  297. 


12  PLAN     OF     UNION. 

The  Plan  of  Union. 

1st.  "It  is  Strictly  enjoined  on  all  their  missiona- 
ries to  the  new  settlements,  to  endeavor,  by  all 
proper  means,  to  promote  mutual  forbearance  and 
accommodationj  between  those  inhabitants  of  the 
new  settlements  who  hold  the  Presbyterian  and 
those  who  hold  the  Congregational  form  of  church 
government. 

''  2d.  If  in  the  new  settlements,  any  church  of 
the  Congregational  order  shall  settle  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  order,  that  church  may,  if  they  choose, 
still  conduct  their  discipline  according  to  Congrega- 
tional principles,  settling  their  difficulties  among 
themselves,  or  by  a  council  mutually  agreed  upon 
for  that  purpose.  But  if  any  difficulty  shall  exist 
between  the  minister  and  the  church  or  any  mem- 
ber of  it,  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  presbytery  to 
which  the  minister  shall  belong,  provided  both  par- 
ties agree  to  it ;  if  not,  to  a  council  consisting  of  an 
equal  number  of  Presbyterians  and  Congregation- 
alists,  agreed  upon  by  both  parties. 

"  3d.  If  a  Presbyterian  church  shall  settle  a  min- 
ister of  Congregational  principles,  that  church  may 
still  conduct  their  discipline  according  to  Presbyte- 
rian principles ;  excepting  that  if  a  difficulty  arise 
between  him  and  his  church,  or  any  member  of  it, 
the  cause  shall  be  tried  by  the  Association,  to  which 
the  said  minister  shall  belong,  provided  both  parties 
agree  to  it ;  otherwise  by  a  council,  one  half  Con- 


PLANOFUNION.  13 

The  Plan  of  Union. 

gregationalists  and  the  other  half  Presbyterians, 
mutually  agreed  on  by  the  parties. 

"  4th.  If  any  congregation  consist  partly  of  those 
who  hold  the  Congregational  form  of  discipline, 
and  partly  of  those  who  hold  the  Presbyterian  form ; 
we  recommend  to  both  parties,  that  this  be  no  ob- 
struction to  their  uniting  in  one  church  and  set- 
tling a  minister :  and  that  in  this  case,  the  church 
choose  a  standing  committee  from  the  commimi- 
cants  of  said  church,  whose  business  it  shall  be,  to 
call  to  account  every  member  of  the  church,  who 
shall  conduct  himself  inconsistently  with  the  laws 
of  Christianity,  and  to  give  judgment  on  such  con- 
duct :  and  if  the  person  condemned  by  their  judg- 
ment be  a  Presbyterian,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  ap- 
peal to  the  presbytery :  if  a  Congregationalist,  he 
shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  body  of  the  male 
communicants  of  the  church :  in  the  former  case, 
the  determination  of  the  presbytery  shall  be  final, 
unless  the  church  consent  to  a  further  appeal  to  the 
synod,  or  to  the  General  Assembly :  and  in  the  latter 
case,  if  the  party  condemned  shall  wish  for  a  trial 
by  a  mutual  council,  the  cause  shall  be  referred  to 
such  council.  And  provided  the  said  standing  com- 
mittee of  any  church,  shall  depute  one  of  them- 
selves to  attend  the  presbytery,  he  may  have  the 
same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  presbytery,  as  a 
ruUng  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
2 


14  PLANOFUNION. 

The  Plan  of  Union  a  Compact. 

*'  On  motion  J  Resolved,  That  an  attested  copy  of 
the  above  plan  be  made  by  the  stated  clerk,  and 
put  into  the  hands  of  the  delegates  of  this  Assem- 
bly to  the  General  Association,  to  be  by  them  laid 
before  that  body  for  their  consideration  ;  and  that 
if  it  should  be  approved  by  them,  it  go  into  imme- 
diate operation." 

"  The  delegates  to  the  last  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  reported,  that  they  all  attended  the 
Association  during  the  whole  of  their  sessions,  and 
were  received  and  treated  with  great  cordiality  and 
friendship : 

That  the  regulations  submitted  by  the  last  As- 
sembly, respecting  the  establishment  of  churches  in 
the  frontiers,  consisting  of  members  partly  of  the 
Presbyterian  and  partly  of  the  Congregational  de- 
nominations, were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  As- 
sociation." 

This  Plan  of  Union  is  primarily  an  agreement  or 
compact  between  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  and  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  acting  as  missionary  societies.  They 
stipulate,  that  their  missionaries  shall  endeavor  to 
promote  forbearance  and  accommodation  between 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  in  the  new 
settlements,  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  connec- 


PLAN     OF     UNION.  15 

Plan  of  Union  binding. 

tion  of  the  churches  formed  by  their  joint  labors, 
with  the  Presbyterian  church.  For  the  better  at- 
tainment of  this  object,  they  provide  for  the  settle- 
ment of  Presbyterian  ministers  over  Congregational 
churches,  and  Congregational  ministers  over  Pres- 
byterian churches,  leaving  the  churches  to  practice 
their  own  mode  of  discipline  ;  and  proposing  such 
a  method  of  adjusting  difficulties  between  the  pas- 
tors and  churches,  as  would  secure  to  each  party 
the  application,  as  far  as  practicable,  of  its  own  sys- 
tem of  discipline.  The  most  important  stipulation, 
however,  is  that  which  relates  to  the  churches  com- 
posed of  both  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians, 
The  Assembly  and  Association  recommend,  that 
such  churches  appoint  in  the  place  of  ruling  elders, 
a  standing  committee,  who  shall  issue  all  cases  of 
discipline,  their  decision  being  subject  to  an  appeal, 
at  the  option  of  the  individual  concerned,  either  to 
the  presbytery  or  to  the  male  communicants  of  the 
church ;  and  who  shall  have  the  right  to  depute 
one  of  their  number  to  sit  and  act  in  the  presbytery 
as  a  ruling  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

By  the  terms  of  agreement  in  the  Plan  of  Union, 
the  General  Assembly  and  General  Association  were 
mutually  bound  to  each  other  to  carry  its  provisions 
into  effect,  so  far  as  they  had  power  to  do  it.  They 
were  under  obligation,  in  the  first  place,  to  instruct 
their  missionaries  "  to  promote  forbearance  and  ac- 


16 


PLAN     OF     UNION, 


Plan  of  Union  respects  churches  in  the  new  settlements. 

commodation,"  as  stipulated ;  and  then  to  exert 
their  influence  upon  the  members  of  their  respective 
churches  in  the  new  settlements,  to  lead  them  to 
adopt  the  plan  proposed.  In  fulfillment  of  these  ob- 
ligations, the  General  Association,  acting  through 
the  trustees  of  the  Connecticut  Missionary  Society, 
has  ever  instructed  its  missionaries  to  organize 
churches  according  to  the  articles  of  union,  and 
counseled  the  members  of  Congregational  churches 
in  the  new  settlements  to  conform  to  these  regula- 
tions. The  General  Assembly  acted  in  a  similar 
mamier ;  and  in  1806,  "  Resolved,  that  the  com- 
mittee of  missions  cause  a  number  of  copies  of  this 
plan  to  be  printed,  and  delivered  to  the  missionaries 
who  may  be  sent  by  the  Assembly  among  the  peo- 
ple concerned."  So  far,  the  original  parties  acted 
with  mutual  good  faith. 

But  the  Plan  of  Union  had  respect  to  the  churches 
in  the  new  settlements ;  not,  indeed,  that  it  was 
binding  on  them  without  their  consent ;  but  it  held 
out  to  them  proposals,  which,  when  voluntarily  ac- 
cepted, were  the  ground  of  rights  and  privileges  to 
be  conferred  on  them  by  the  General  Assembly. 
Whenever  any  church  assents  to  the  terms  of  union, 
and  connects  itself,  by  the  attendance  of  one  of  its 
standing  committee,  with  a  presbytery,  then  it  be- 
comes subject  to  all  the  liabilities,  and  entitled  to 
all  the  immunities,  of  membership  in  the  Presbyte- 


PLAN     OF     UNION.  17 

Plan  of  Union  illustrated  by  a  marriage  contract. 

rian  church.  An  obhgation  rests  upon  all  the  judi- 
catories of  the  church,  from  the  lowest  to  the  high- 
est, to  respect  the  rights  of  this  member  and  to  treat 
it  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  Presbyterian  body. 
Every  church  organizing  itself  according  to  the 
Plan  of  Union,  virtually  becomes  a  third  party  to 
that  compact.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  has  no  right  to  take  away  its  priv- 
ileges or  membership,  without  its  consent ;  nor  can 
it  do  this,  without  both  violating  its  solemn  en- 
gagements to  that  church,  and  departing  from  the 
principles  of  courtesy  and  good  faith  towards  the 
General  Association  of  Connecticut.  This  latter 
body  exerted  its  advisory  power  over  Congregation- 
alists,  to  induce  them  to  become  in  a  certain  form 
Presbyterians,  on  the  ground  of  the  supposed  ad- 
vantages which  would  accrue  to  the  churches  or- 
ganized in  the  new  settlements,  through  the  en- 
gagement of  the  General  Assembly  to  receive  them 
into  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  and 
the  violation  of  that  engagement  in  any  manner,  is 
a  wrong  to  the  party  who  thus  acted  in  view  of  it. 
For  an  illustration  of  these  positions,  suppose  a 
certain  father  residing  in  Philadelphia,  undertakes 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  marriage  for  his  son,  with 
a  certain  father  residing  in  the  city  of  Hartford^ 
whose  daughter  is  now  absent  in  the  state  of  Ohio. 
These  parents  engage  to  employ  suitable  persons  to 
2* 


18  PLANOFUNION. 

Plan  of  Union  illustrated  by  a  marriage  contract. 

introduce  the  parties  to  each  other,  and  gain  their 
consent  to  the  union.  The  parent  of  the  son  enters 
into  an  agreement  with  the  other  parent,  that  the 
daughter,  in  case  the  proposed  marriage  is  consum- 
mated, shall  be  received  into  his  family,  and  enjoy 
all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  one  of  his  own  daugh- 
ters ;  and  particularly,  in  the  event  of  her  husband's 
death,  shall  continue  with  him  and  be  an  heir  to 
his  estate.  The  proposals  agreed  upon  between 
the  two  parents  are  communicated  to  the  children. 
They  accept  them  and  assume  the  marriage  rela- 
tion. In  doing  it,  they  become  parties  to  an  agree- 
ment by  which  the  wife  comes  into  possession  of 
valuable  privileges  and  immunities.  Here,  then,  is 
a  compact  like  that  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  in  which 
two  parties  stipulate  that  other  persons  in  whom 
they  feel  a  mutual  interest,  shall,  upon  certain  con- 
ditions, become  entitled  to  certain  benefits.  The 
original  parties  agreed  to  use  their  influence  to  pro- 
duce a  given  result,  on  account  of  the  benefits  that 
would  accrue  to  a  third  party,  in  consequence  of 
that  result.  Now  suppose  that  the  party  who  had 
stipulated  to  receive  his  daughter-in-law  into  his 
house  and  make  her  an  heir  to  his  estate,  should 
utterly  refuse  to  fulfill  his  part  of  the  compact,  and 
should  declare  the  instrument  by  which  he  had 
bound  himself,  null  and  void.  Suppose  on  the 
death  of  his  son  he  should  drive  her  from  the  home 


PLAN     OF     UNION.  19 

Plan  of  Union  illustrated  by  a  marriage  contract. 


that  was  pledged,  and  deprive  her  of  the  promised 
inheritance ;  what  obligations  would  he  violate  ? 
In  the  first  place,  he  would  violate  an  important  ob- 
ligation to  the  parent,  who,  in  view  of  the  benefits 
which  his  daughter  was  to  derive,  used  his  influ- 
ence to  procure  her  marriage.  And  in  the  second 
place,  he  would  violate  his  obligations  to  his  daugh- 
ter-in-law, by  depriving  her  of  all  the  enjoyments 
of  a  home  and  casting  her  upon  her  own  resources. 
The  world  would  consider  this  treatment  of  her  as 
cruel  and  unjust ;  and  that  of  her  father  as  uncourte- 
ous  and  unchristian.  But  how  analogous  to  the  com- 
pact supposed,  is  the  Plan  of  Union :  how  analo- 
gous to  the  declaring  of  that  compact  null  and  void, 
is  the  act  of  abrogation ;  and  how  analogous  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  daughter-in-law  from  her  home 
and  privileges,  is  the  excision  of  the  churches  that 
have  been  received,  according  to  the  Plan,  into  the 
Presbyterian  church. 

But  let  not  a  hasty  judgment  be  passed  u}X)n  the 
doings  of  so  venerable  a  body  as  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1837.  Let  its  acts  be  impartially  can- 
vassed and  decided  on,  only  after  due  consideration. 
In  the  mean  time  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the 
Plan  of  Union  is  a  compact  between  the  General 
Assembly  and  the  General  Association,  in  which 
the  latter  was  pledged  to  instruct  its  missionaries 
to  plant  and  build  up  churches  of  a  certain  kind. 


20  PLANOFUNION. 

Plan  of  Union  illustrated  by  a  marriage  contract. 

and  to  influence  Congregationalists  to  join  them,  in 
consideration  of  a  promise  on  the  part  of  the  former, 
that  these  churches  shall  be  taken  under  the  care 
of  the  Assembly,  and  enjoy  the  privileges  of  mem- 
bership with  the  Presbyterian  body.  Let  it  be  fur- 
ther remembered,  that  the  obligations  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  are  two-fold  :  1st,  to  the  General  As- 
sociation of  Connecticut ;  and  2d,  to  the  churches 
which  have  accepted  the  conditions  agreed  upon 
by  the  two  original  p£irties,  as  proposed  to  them ; 
for  whom,  on  their  consenting  to  the  union,  and 
thus  becoming  a  third  party,  the  benefits  of  the 
compact  were  chiefly  intended. 


21 


CHAPTER   III. 

ABROGATION     OF     THE     PLAN     OF     UNION. 

Reasons  assigned  for  the  Abrogation. 

If  the  interpretation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  given 
in  the  preceding  chapter  is  correct,  the  way  is  now 
prepared  for  a  more  particular  inquiry  respecting  its 
abrogation  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1837.  The 
following  is  the  resolution  on  the  subject  passed  by 
that  body.  ''  As  the  Plan  of  Union  adopted  for  the 
new  settlements  in  1801,  was  originally  an  uncon- 
stitutional act  on  the  part  of  that  Assembly,  these 
important  standing  rules  having  never  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  presbyteries ; — and  as  they  were  to- 
tally destitute  of  authority  as  proceeding  from  the 
General  Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  in- 
vested with  no  power  to  legislate  in  such  cases, 
and  especially  to  enact  laws  to  regulate  churches 
not  within  her  limits ;  and  as  much  confusion  and 
irregularity  have  Eirisen  from  this  unnatural  and  un- 
constitutional system  of  union,  therefore,  it  is  re- 
solved, that  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  of  1801,  en- 
titled "A  Plan  of  Union,"  be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby  abrogated."* 

*  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  p.  421. 


22 


ABROGATION     OF     THE 


Alledged  unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Union. 

In  this  resolution  three  reasons  are  assigned  for 
the  act  of  abrogation,  each  of  which  claims  a  brief 
examination.  The  first  is,  the  unconstitutionality 
of  the  Plan  of  Union.  It  is  denied  that  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  has  constitutional  right  to  form  these 
important  standing  rules  without  the  approbation 
of  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries,  as  specified  in 
Chap.  XIT,  Sec.  6th,  of  the  form  of  government. 
This  section  provides,  "  that  before  any  overtures 
or  regulations  proposed  by  the  Assembly  to  be  es- 
tablished as  constitutional  rules,  shall  be  obligatory 
on  the  churches,  it  shall  be  necessary  to  transmit 
them  to  all  the  presbyteries,  and  to  receive  the  re- 
turns of  at  least  a  majority  of  them,  in  writing,  ap- 
proving thereof." 

The  question  then  arises,  are  the  provisions  of 
the  Plan  of  Union,  such  constitutional  rules  as  are 
here  contemplated  ?  If  this  should  be  answered  in 
the  affirmative,  then  another  question  would  arise, 
have  they  ever  been  approved  by  the  presbyteries, 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  constitution  ? 
However  the  former  question  may  be  determined, 
the  latter  may  be  dismissed ;  for  it  cannot  be  claim- 
ed, that  the  presbyteries  have  acted  in  that  formal 
manner,  required  for  the  adoption  of  constitutional 
rules.  In  deciding  whether  the  Plan  of  Union  falls 
under  the  provision  of  the  section  quoted  from  the 
form  of  government,  it  must  first  be  settled,  who 


PLANOFUNION.  23 

Plan  of  Union,  not  constitutional  rules. 

are  the  proper  judges  in  the  case  ?  The  Presbyte- 
rian church  has  no  court  especially  appointed  to 
issue  constitutional  questions.  Reference  must, 
therefore,  be  had  to  her  judicatories  acting  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances  to  judge  impar- 
tially ;  and  to  the  whole  body  of  her  members,  pass- 
ing judgment,  directly,  by  an  expression  of  their 
opinions,  or,  impliedly,  by  their  acquiescence  in  the 
case.  If  it  can  be  shown,  that,  for  a  period  of  years, 
all  her  judicatories  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest, 
as  well  as  the  whole  body  of  the  church,  have  re- 
garded the  Plan  of  Union  as  not  unconstitutional, 
this  fact  will  go  far  towards  deciding,  in  the  nega- 
tive, the  question  whether  the  plan  is  of  the  na- 
ture of  ''  those  constitutional  rules,"  which  are  re- 
quired to  be  sent  to  the  presbyteries,  and  to  be,  by 
a  majority  of  them,  approved,  before  it  can  be  of 
binding  force. 

On  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Plan  of  Union,  it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  the  As- 
sembly of  1801,  which  was  composed  of  some  of 
the  wisest  and  best  of  the  ministers  and  elders  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  did  not  regard  the  articles 
of  agreement,  which  it  adopted  and  proposed  to  the 
General  Association  of  Connecticut,  of  the  kind 
contemplated  in  the  article  of  the  constitution  just 
quoted.  With  this  opinion,  all  succeeding  General 
Assemblies  till  the  last,  concurred ;    having  uni- 


24  ABROGATION     OF     THE 

Plan  of  Union,  not  constitutional  rules. 

formly  acted  on  the  ground  that  the  Plan  of  Union 
was  constitutional.  Nor  can  it  be  asserted  with 
truth,  that  this  uniformity  of  action  and  approval 
WcLs  a  mere  oversight,  occasioned  by  inadvertence. 
For,  before  several  Assemblies,  the  question  came 
up  directly  in  one  form  and  another  for  considera- 
tion ;  and  before  them  all,  questions  were  discussed 
cedculated  to  call  the  attention  to  the  subject.  This, 
especially,  was  the  case  in  the  Assembly  of  1806, 
which  ordered  the  printing  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
for  the  use  of  its  missionaries  in  the  new  settle- 
ments ;  with  that  of  1808,  which  considered  and 
approved  the  Plan  of  Union  adopted  by  the  Synod 
of  Albany  in  1807;  with  that  of  1821,  by  whose 
act  the  presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Sy- 
nod were  united  with  the  Presbyterian  church ;  and 
that  of  1835,  which  in  its  action  on  the  Plan  of  Un- 
ion directly,  never  questioned  its  constitutionality. 
By  thirty  five  successive  Assemblies  was  its  consti- 
tutionality conceded,  and  the  act  virtually  sanc- 
tioned, by  receiving  commissioners  from  the  pres- 
byteries constituted  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 

The  same  interpretation  has  been  given  by  the 
presbyteries,  to  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  of  1801. 
From  that  time  to  the  present,  they  have  uniformly 
acknowledged  the  Plan  as  not  unconstitutional.  On 
all  occasions  they  have  acquiesced  in  it  and  been 
silent ;  and  in  1821,  when  they  adopted  the  amend- 


PLANOFUNION.  25 


Plan  of  Union,  not  constitutional  rules. 


ed  constitution,  they  not  merely  acquiesced,  but 
virtually  expressed  their  assent;  for,  it  is  hai'dly 
conceivable,  that,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  its  exist- 
ence and  operation,  and  with  the  belief  that  it  was 
unconstitutional,  they  would  have  proceeded  to  rat- 
ify the  constitution,  without  an  effort  to  correct  so 
great  an  abuse  of  its  powers.  Thus  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  as  a  body,  and  all  its  judicatories  from 
the  lowest  to  the  highest,  have  for  thirty  five  years 
and  more,  decided  that  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801, 
was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require  the  written 
assent  of  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries,  to  render 
it  a  constitutional  and  binding  act. 

It  was  left  to  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  under  a  special  emergency,  to  pronounce  a 
contrary  decision  ;  and  the  question  is,  which  de- 
cision is  valid?  That  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
church  and  of  the  General  Assembly  for  so  long  a 
period  ?  Or,  that  of  a  small  majority,  of  a  divided 
and  excited  Assembly  ?  No  unbiased  mind  can  be 
at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  If  then,  as  was  stated,  the 
interpretation  given  to  any  particular  act  of  Assem- 
bly, in  respect  to  its  constitutional  bearings,  pro- 
ceeds from  a  legitimate  source,  only  when  it  can  be 
regarded  as  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the 
chm*ch  and  her  judicatories,  for  a  sufficient  length 
of  time  and  under  circumstances  to  admit  of  a  de- 
liberate consideration  and  judgment ;  what  is  the 
3 


26 


ABROGATION     OF     THE 


Duty  of  the  Assembly  to  send  down  the  Plan. 

conclusion  to  be  derived  ?  The  former  decision  be- 
ing of  this  kind,  while  the  latter  was  wholly  desti- 
tute of  these  requisites,  the  point  regarding  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  Plan  of  Union  was  settled,  be- 
fore the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  ; 
nor  can  the  doings  of  that  body  on  the  subject,  un- 
settle it  and  bring  it  again  into  dispute. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  this  subject  which 
is  important.  Grant  that  the  Plan  of  Union  should 
have  been  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their 
approval.  To  whom  must  the  fault  of  the  neglect 
to  do  it,  be  attributed  ?  Not,  surely,  to  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  nor  to  the  churches 
which  were  organized  under  its  provisions.  They 
could  do  nothing  in  the  case.  The  fault  was  charge- 
able solely  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church,  which  neglected  to  perform  a  duty  en- 
joined upon  it  by  its  own  constitution.  And  can 
the  Assembly  of  1837,  take  advantage  of  a  neglect 
of  duty  on  the  part  of  preceding  Assemblies,  and 
on  this  ground  set  aside  a  compact  which  has 
long  been  acknowledged  as  binding  on  all  parties  ? 
Suppose  a  treaty  had  been  made  thirty  five  years 
ago  between  France  and  the  United  States,  in 
which  the  latter  stipulated,  on  certain  conditions, 
to  confer  on  a  number  of  the  subjects  of  the  French 
king,  the  rights  £ind  privileges  of  American  citizens. 
Suppose,  through  the  neglect  of  the  president  and 


PLAN      OF      UNION.  27 


No  advantage  to  be  taken  from  the  neglect. 

of  congress,  the  treaty  failed  to  be  ratified  by  the 
senate  of  the  United  States,  but  was  uniformly  ob- 
served in  good  faith  by  all  the  parties  concerned. 
When  the  American  government  sees  cause  to  dis- 
like the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  shall  it  take  ad- 
vantage of  its  own  neglect,  to  annul  it  and  declare 
that  all,  which  has  taken  place  under  it,  is  set  aside  ? 
No  government,  nor  body  of  men,  nor  individuals, 
can  take  such  advantage  of  their  own  acts.  No 
principle  is  plainer  or  better  established  than  this. 
If  the  General  Assembly  neglected  its  duty  by  not 
sending  the  Plan  of  Union  to  the  presbyteries,  it 
has  no  right  now  to  say,  that  it  is  unconstitutional, 
and  therefore  void. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  still  another  view 
of  the  subject  which  ought  to  be  presented.  It  is 
this. — ^Let  it  be  admitted  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  the  Plan  of  Union  was  originally  unconstitu- 
tional, that  is,  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  princi- 
ples of  Presbyterian  government  embodied  in  the 
constitution  of  the  church.  It  was,  nevertheless, 
proposed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1801,  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut ; 
— and,  for  a  long  period,  it  has  been  acted  upon  by 
the  churches  in  the  new  settlements.  Important 
interests  have  grown  up  under  it.  The  right  of 
property  in  many  instances  depends  on  the  question, 
whether  these  churches  belong  to  the  body  with 


28  ABROGATION     OF     THE 


The  Plan,  if  unconstitutional,  is  not  to  be  abrogated. 

which  they  have  supposed  themselves  connected. 
If  they  have  mistaken  the  constitution,  they  have 
been  led  into  the  error  by  the  Genera]  Assembly. 
Now,  shall  that  body,  under  these  circumstances 
declare,  that  the  instrument  by  which  they  claim 
their  rights  is  unconstitutional,  and  null  and  void  ; 
and,  as  a  consequence,  that  they  are  out  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  ?  Can  any  such  abrogation  of  the 
Plan  of  Union  be  made,  as  will  affect  the  standing 
and  interests  of  those  who  have  come,  constitu- 
tionally, or  unconstitutionally,  into  the  Presbyterian 
church  ? 

This  view  of  the  subject  may  well  be  illustrated 
by  a  reference  to  the  treaty,  by  which  Louisiana 
was  ceded  to  the  United  States.  If  it  be  claimed 
that  the  act  of  cession  was  unconstitutional,  and 
this  point  should  be  granted,  could  either  the  Uni- 
ted States  or  France  abrogate  that  treaty  ?  After 
its  constitutionality  has  been  sanctioned  for  thirty 
five  years  by  the  American  government,  and  the 
whole  body  of  the  people  have  virtually  assented 
to  it  and  confirmed  it,  would  even  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  if  the  question  was 
referred,  adjudge  the  treaty  unconstitutional  and 
void?  Would  it  declare  the  states  which  have 
come  into  the  Union  in  consequence  of  it,  to  be  out 
of  the  Union  ?  No  such  decision  would  be  made. 
The  treaty  would  be  sustained,  and  the  rights  and 


PLANOF     UNION.  29 

Abrogation  morally  reprehensible. 

privileges  of  the  states  in  question,  would  be  con- 
firmed. A  contrary  decision  would  strike  at  the 
foundation  of  society,  and  leave  in  doubt  and  jeop- 
ardy, some  of  the  most  important  interests  of  man- 
kind. And  can  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  abrogate  the  Plan  of  Union,  and 
not  violate  the  principles  which  bind  christian  com- 
munities, and  ecclesiastical  bodies  ?  Can  it  do  this, 
and  follow  out  its  act,  as  it  has  attempted  to  do,  in 
the  excision  of  synods,  without  disregarding  the 
most  sacred  rights.  Can  it  resort  to  the  mere  tech- 
nicalities of  a  constitution  to  justify  such  proceed- 
ings ?  Reason  and  conscience  answer  no,  and  the 
principles  of  the  gospel  forbid  it.  There  are  laws 
in  binding  force  above  all  constitutions  and  all 
forms ;  and  it  is  painful  to  hear  an  appeal  to  the 
latter,  in  justification  of  acts,  which  will  not  bear 
the  test  of  the  former. 

From  the  view  of  this  subject  which  has  now 
been  given,  it  appears  that  the  General  Assembly 
of  1837,  took  upon  itself  the  power,  not  merely  to 
repeal  the  act  of  a  former  Assembly,  which  it  might 
in  some  cases  very  properly  have  done,  but  it  rever- 
sed the  decisions  of  the  whole  Presbyterian  church 
and  of  all  her  judicatories  for  the  last  thirty-six 
yeais,  on  a  subject  involving  the  relations,  and  in- 
terest, and  welfare,  of  a  multitude  of  her  churches. 
It  set  aside  a  compact  as  binding  as  any  constitu- 
3* 


30  ABROGATION,      &C. 

Abrogation  morally  reprehensible. 

tion  could  be,  on  the  plea  of  its  unconstitutionality, 
and  that,  when  the  most  important  consequences 
were  involved.  It  did  this,  not  only  without  the 
consent,  but  in  opposition  to  the  known  wishes  of 
both  the  other  parties  concerned.  It  must  therefore 
be  regarded,  in  whatever  aspect  its  measures  are 
contemplated,  to  say  the  least,  as  having  transgres- 
sed the  spirit  of  its  constitution,  in  its  unwarranta- 
ble zeal  to  maintain  the  letter. 


31 


CHAPTER    lY. 

ABROGATION     OF     THE     PLAN     OF     UNION. 

Second  reason  considered. 

The  second  reason  assigned,  in  the  resolution  of 
the  Assembly,  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of 
Union,  is,  that  the  General  Association  of  Connec- 
ticut had  no  authority  to  act  as  a  party  in  the  agree- 
ment ;  1st,  because,  ^'  it  is  invested  with  no  power 
to  legislate  in  such  cases,"  and  2d,  because,  it  can- 
not "  enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within 
its  limits."  Such  reasons  sound  strangely  to  the 
Congregationalists  of  Connecticut ;  and  must  sound 
equally  strange  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
facts  in  the  case.  The  General  Association  of 
Connecticut  is  an  ecclesiastical  body  of  long  stand- 
ing ;  and  for  nearly  half  a  century  has  acted  as  a 
missionary  society.  If  it  were  a  mere  voluntary 
association,  it  would  be  authorized  in  common  law, 
to  transact  business  in  reference  to  the  welfare  of 
Christ's  kingdom.  Engagements  lawfully  entered 
into  by  it  for  this  purpose,  would  be  recognized,  by 
civil  courts,  as  binding  on  all  the  parties  concerned. 
It  has  been  decided,  in  one  instance  at  least,  that  a 
voluntary  association,  organized  for  a  specific  be- 


32  ABROGATION     OF     THE 


General  Association  not  a  voluntary  association. 

nevolent  object,  is  capable  of  acting  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  that  object  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be- 
come a  legal  party  ;*  and  the  same  principle  would 
apply  to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  as 
a  missionary  society,  though  it  had  no  act  of  incor- 
poration, and  its  existence  had  never  been  acknow- 
ledged by  any  legislature.  It  is,  certainly,  on  this 
view  of  the  subject,  a  very  singular  position  to  be 
taken  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  that  a  kindred  ecclesiastical  body  and  a 
missionary  society,  has  no  power  to  "legislate"  in 
respect  to  its  missionaries  and  the  churches  to 
wHich  they  are  sent. 

But  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  is 
not  a  mere  voluntary  association.  Since  1708, 
when  the  legislature  of  Connecticut  approved  the 
"  regulations  in  the  administration  of  church  disci- 
pline," (fcc,  agreed  upon  by  the  elders  and  messen- 
gers of  the  churches  assembled  at  Saybrook  the 
same  year,  it  has  been  a  body  known  and  estab- 
lished by  law ;  and,  therefore,  legally  capable  of 
transacting  such  business  as  falls  within  its  nature 
and  design.f  Its  existence  as  a  missionary  society, 
had  been,  for  several  years  previous  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Plan  of  Union,  sanctioned  by  the  acts  of  the 


*  Case  of  the  Burr  legacy  to  the  American  Tract  Society, 
t  Saybrook  Platform,  edition  of  1810,  p.  136. 


P  L  A  N      O  F      U  N  I  O  N  .  33 

General  Association  an  incorporated  Missionary  Society. 

legislature,  authorizing  it  to  collect  funds  from  the 
inhabitants  of  the  State,  and  to  use  them  for  mis- 
sionary purposes  :  and  in  1802,  soon  after  the  agree- 
ment with  the  General  Assembly,  it  was  regiilai'ly 
incorporated  by  receivmg  a  formal  charter. 

Such  being  the  General  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, the  question  is,  did  it  fall  within  the  scope  of 
its  powers,  to  enter  into  compact  with  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  in  regard  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Union  ?  Wcis  it  ade- 
quate to  agree,  on  its  part,  that  its  "  missionaries  to 
the  new  settlements,  should  endeavor  by  all  proper 
means  to  promote  mutual  forbearance  and  accom- 
modation between  those  inhabitants  of  the  new 
settlements,  who  hold  the  Presbyterian  and  those 
who  hold  the  Congregational  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment ?"  Had  it  power  to  agree  with  the  As- 
sembly, to  recommend  to  Congregationahsts  and 
Presbyterians  in  these  settlements,  to  unite  together 
into  churches  according  to  the  mode  prescribed  in 
the  Plan  of  Union  ?  Who  can  doubt  that  it  pos- 
sessed powers  of  this  kind  even  in  law,  so  that  if 
questions  of  property  were  to  arise  from  the  agree- 
ment, legal  titles  might  be  established  ?  Who  can 
doubt,  that,  if  the  possession  of  a  house  of  worship 
depended  upon  the  question,  whether  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut  had  power  to  perform  all 
that  it  assumed  to  do  in  the  Plan  of  Union,  a  court 


34  ABROGATION     OF     THE 

The  General  Association  competent  to  be  a  party. 

of  justice  would  at  once  decide  on  the  ground  of 
the  adequacy  of  these  powers  ? 

In  regard  to  the  power  of  the  Association  "  to 
enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within  its  lim- 
its." it  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that  no  such  power 
is  assumed  in  the  agreement  under  consideration. 
Both  individuals  and  churches  were  left  by  the 
Plan  of  Union  free  to  act  as  they  pleased ;  and  in 
case  they  adopted  its  recommendation,  then,  by 
their  own  voluntary  act,  and  not  by  any  act  of  the 
General  Association,  they  entered  into  connection 
with  the  Presbyterian  church.  The  Association 
neither  used  nor  claimed  to  use,  any  power  but  the 
influence  of  advice.  Why  is  so  obvious  a  fact  en- 
tirely lost  sight  of,  in  the  resolution  of  the  General 
Assembly  ?  Why  is  the  voluntary  action  of  the 
churches,  in  accepting  the  proposals  made  them, 
left  entirely  out  of  the  account,  and  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut  represented  as  disposing 
of  them,  by  its  own  authority,  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, when  such  a  representation  is  wholly  with- 
out foundation  ? 

The  argument  as  now  presented,  may  seem  to 
admit  the  necessity  of  legal  qualifications  in  the 
parties  concerned,  to  form  a  compact,  like  that  of 
the  Plan  of  Union,  which  shsill  be  mutually  bind- 
ing. No  such  admission,  however,  is  intended. 
There  are  moral  obligations  above  all  human  laws, 


PLANOF     UNION.  35 

Legal  qualifications  not  necessary  to  moral  obligation. 

which  are  binding  on  ecclesiastical  bodies  and  asso- 
ciations of  christians  in  all  their  engagements  with 
each  other.  They  are  bound  to  act  in  good  faith, 
though  no  human  laws  exist,  to  enforce  such  ac- 
tion. When  they  attempt  to  evade  their  obliga- 
tions, by  a  resort  to  mere  legal  forms,  or  constitu- 
tional rules,  they  show  dishonesty  of  intention,  and 
bring  upon  themselves  deserved  reprobation.  It  is 
really  painful  to  see  a  body  of  men,  like  the  major- 
ity of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  composed  of 
ministers  and  elders  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  so 
forgetful  of  the  basis  of  christian  obligation,  as  se- 
riously to  assign  in  the  face  of  the  world,  as  a  rea- 
son for  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union,  that  the  Gen- 
eral Association  of  Connecticut  wanted  power  to  do 
all  that  it  did  as  a  party  to  that  compact. 

But  the  consistency  of  the  act  appears  to  no  bet- 
ter advantage  than  its  moral  aspect. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
has,  for  a  long  period,  acknowledged  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  as  a  body  capable  of 
forming  compacts  for  purposes  of  mutual  good  and 
the  advancement  of  Christ's  cause.  In  1792,  the 
two  bodies  respectively  agreed  to  a  standing  com- 
mittee of  correspondence,  and  to  an  interchange  of 
delegates  ;  and  in  1794,  they  mutually  agreed  that 
these  delegates  should  vote  as  other  members  of 
the  respective  bodies.     When  the  General  Assem- 


36  ABROGATION     OF     THE 

General  Assembly  contradicts  its  own  practice. 

bly  became  dissatisfied  with  the  latter  regulation, 
it  proposed  its  discontinuance  ;  and  the  General  As- 
sociation readily  assented.  The  Assembly  of  1835 
adopted  a  similar  course  in  regard  to  the  Plan  of 
Union.  It  ''  resolved  that  our  brethren  of  the  Gen- 
eral Association  of  Connecticut,  be,  and  they  hereby 
are  respectfully  requested  to  consent  that  said  Plan 
shall  be,  from  and  after  the  next  meeting  of  that 
Association,  declared  to  be  annulled."* 

Thus,  from  1792  to  1837,  the  General  Assembly 
has  uniformly  recognized  the  General  Association 
of  Connecticut,  as  invested  with  power  to  act  for 
the  good  of  the  churches  under  their  mutual  care  ; 
and  has  acknowledged  the  moral  obligation  to  ob- 
serve in  good  faith  the  agreements  entered  into 


*  This  resolution  was  never  presented  to  the  General  Associa- 
tion of  Connecticut.  The  fact  was  stated  to  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  by  one  of  the  delegates  from  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  and  his  statement  was  confirmed  by  the  reading  of 
the  report  of  the  delegates  to  the  Association  from  the  Assembly 
of  1835.  No  copy  of  the  resolution,  and  no  instructions  were 
forwarded  them.  Therefore,  neither  they,  nor  the  General  As- 
sociation, acted  on  common  fame.  Yet  in  the  circular  letter  to 
all  the  churches,  signed  by  the  Moderator,  to  whom  the  above 
statement  was  addressed,  and  by  the  Clerk,  who  read  the  report, 
it  is  said :  "  The  General  Assembly  of  1835,  respectfully  re- 
quested the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  to  consent  that 
the  Plan  of  Union  in  question  should  be  annulled.  Having  now 
waited  two  additional  years  in  vain  for  any  favorable  action  in 
the  case,  on  the  part  of  our  brethren  in  Connecticut,"  &c. 


PLANOFUNION.  37 

General  Assembly  contradicts  its  own  practice. 

by  the  parties.  By  what  logic  the  last  Assembly 
came  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  General  Associa- 
tion wanted  authority  to  act  in  the  Plan  of  Union, 
and  that  the  agreement  is  therefore  null  and  void, 
it  is  difficult  to  determine. 


38 


CHAPTER  V 


ABROGATION  OF  THE  PLAN  OF  UNION, 


Third  reason  assigned. 


The  third  reason  assigned  in  the  resolution  for 
the  act  of  abrogation  is,  that  "  much  confusion  and 
irregularity  have  arisen  from  this  unnatural  and  un- 
constitutional system  of  union."  To  discover  what 
is  here  intended,  it  will  be  necessary  to  look  beyond 
the  face  of  the  resolution.  There  is  no  occasion, 
however,  to  travel  far  in  search  of  evidence.  This 
is  found  ready  prepared  in  the  "  Testimony  and 
Memorial  of  the  convention  of  1837,"  as  embodied 
in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  Assembly  on 
that  Memorial.*  The  limits  of  this  work  will  allow 
only  an  abstract  to  be  given. 

The  confusion  and  irregularity  in  question  are 
presented  in  ten  specifications.  These  relate  to  the 
formation  of  presbyteries  without  territorial  limits ; 
the  refusal  of  presbyteries  to  examine  applicants  for 
admission,  as  to  their  soundness  in  the  faith ;  the 
licensing  and  ordaining  of  such  as  adopt  the  stand- 
ards only  for  substance  of  doctrine,  and  even  of 
many  who  deny  fundamental  doctrines ;   the  for- 

*  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  p.  471. 


ABROGATION,     &C.  39 

Plan  of  Union  alledged  as  a  cause  of  irregularity. 

mation  of  a  variety  of  creeds  ;  the  ordination  of  a 
multitude  of  men  to  the  office  of  evangeUst ;  the 
disuse  of  the  office  of  ruhng  elder  in  portions  of  the 
church ;  the  electing  and  ordaining  ruling  elders 
for  a  limited  time  ;  a  progressive  change  in  the  sys- 
tem of  presbyterial  representation  in  the  General 
Assembly  ;  the  influence  of  voluntary  and  irrespon- 
sible societies ;  and  the  unconstitutional  decisions 
and  violent  proceedings  of  several  General  Assem- 
blies. These,  j^in  substance,  are  the  irregularities 
and  disorders  which  are  complained  of,  in  the  me- 
morials, and  no  doubt,  intended  in  the  resolution  ; 
and  which  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  charges 
upon  "  the  unnatural  and  unconstitutional  system  of 
union."  In  its  pastoral  letter  to  the  churches  under 
its  care,  are  found  the  following  expressions.  ''  The 
contentions  which  distract  the  chm-ch  evidently 
arose  from  the  Plan  of  Union  formed  in  1801,  be- 
tween the  General  Assembly  and  the  Association 
of  Connecticut."  "  We  believe  that  the  attempt, 
by  this  Plan  of  Union,  to  bring  Congregationalists 
and  Presbyterians  into  the  same  denomination,  has 
been  the  principal  cause  of  those  dissensions,  which 
now  distract  and  rend  the  church  to  pieces."  "  This 
has  been  the  source  of  all  our  present  evils  ; — the 
raising  up  of  presbyteries  and  synods  out  of  men 
who  had  at  least  as  much  of  the  Congregational  as 
the  Presbyterian  character,  has  scattered  the  ele- 


40  ABROGATION     OF     THE 

Plan  of  Union  alledged  as  a  cause  of  irregularity. 

ments  of  discord  through  all  our  regions,  and  torn 
our  afflicted  church  to  pieces.  These  indeed  were 
consequences  not  perceived  from  the  beginning  ;  it 
required  the  light  of  experience  to  teach  us,  that 
the  amalgamation  of  such  bodies  as  the  Congrega- 
tional and  Presbyterian,  would  produce  a  ferment 
sufficient  to  agitate  the  whole  American  nation." 
In  the  opinion,  therefore,  of  the  majority  of  the  last 
General  Assembly,  the  Plan  of  Union  ''  has  had  the 
slow  but  inevitable  effect  to  subvert  the  order  and 
discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church." 

To  enable  the  reader  to  decide  correctly  on  this 
subject,  some  knowledge  is  requisite  of  the  past 
history  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United 
States.  For  a  period  of  twenty  years  from  the  for- 
mation of  its  first  presbytery,  viz.  that  of  Phila- 
delphia, it  had  no  bond  of  union  but  the  bible,  and 
a  general  agreement  in  respect  to  its  plan  of  sal- 
vation. The  ministers  of  that  time  declared  them- 
selves "  willing  to  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  or- 
dinances, all  such  as  they  had  grounds  to  believe 
Christ  will  at  last  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 
Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  were  on  terms 
of  perfect  friendship  and  equality,  notwithstanding 
any  difference  of  views  respecting  church  govern- 
ment. Whether  churches  were  constituted  with 
ruling  elders  or  not,  was  regarded  as  a  point  of  mi- 
nor importance,  and  was  never  brought  into  con- 


PLANOFUNION.  41 

What  they  mean  by  "  irregularity." 

troversy.  By  degrees,  however;  the  fabric  of  Pres- 
byterian ism  grew  up.  A  form  of  government  was 
adopted,  in  which  churches  with  ruUng  elders,  and 
presbyteries  and  synods,  and,  at  length,  a  General 
Assembly,  were  recognized  ;  and  a  rigid  adherence 
to  this  system  was  claimed  by  the  advocates  of 
strict  Presbyterianism.  Such,  however,  has  been 
the  liberality  of  views  in  the  great  body  of  the 
church,  that  no  efforts  of  this  party  have  ever  been 
successful  in  establishing  a  high  church  policy  in 
regard  to  discipline.  Indeed,  it  is  but  a  very  short 
period,  since  any  such  attempts  have  been  made. 
When  the  Plan  of  Union  was  adopted,  and  for 
many  subsequent  years,  the  introduction  of  Con- 
gregationalists  into  the  Presbyterian  denomination, 
whether  ministers,  or  laymen,  or  churches,  was  re- 
gai'ded  on  all  sides  with  favor  and  approbation. 
The  confusion  and  irregularity  which  the  last  As- 
sembly have  attributed  to  the  Plan  of  Union  and 
made  a  reason  for  its  abrogation,  would  then  have 
been  considered  as  no  confusion  and  irregularity  at 
all,  nor  as  threatening  the  least  evil  to  the  church 
or  to  the  cause  of  Christ. 

The  real  question  on  the  subject  of  disorders  now 
is,  shall  Congregationalism,  in  any  shape,  be  tolera- 
ted in  the  Presbyterian  church?  This  question 
embraces  nearly  the  whole  ground  of  complaint 
on  this  subject,  and  divides  the  church  into  two 
4* 


42 


ABROGATION     OF     THE 


The  reasons  for  abrogation  insufficient. 


great  parties.  The  majority  of  the  last  Assembly 
have  decided  it  in  the  negative,  and  proceeded  to 
abrogate  the  Plan  of  Union.  In  carrying  out  that 
decision,  with  the  same  object  in  view,  and  as  a 
professed  consequence  of  that  act,  they  have  at- 
tempted to  exscind  the  four  synods  of  Utica,  Ge- 
neva, Genesee,  and  the  Western  Reserve  ;  to  dis- 
solve the  third  presbytery  of  Philadelphia  ;  and  to 
exclude  the  American  Home  Missionary  and  the 
American  Education  Societies,  from  the  bounds  of 
the  Presbyterian  church. 

Such  are  the  reasons  alledged  in  the  resolution, 
for  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  now  let  the 
reader  pause  and  ask,  are  they  good  and  sufficient  ? 
Do  they  convince  an  enlightened  christian  of  un- 
biased mind,  whose  great  object  is  to  advance  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  ?  Are  they  reasons  which  the 
Redeemer  himself  will  accept  in  justification  of 
the  measure,  on  the  great  day  of  account  ?  Can 
any  man  believe  that  the  Plan  of  Union  is  such  an 
unconstitutional  act,  that  a  solemn  compact  with 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  establishing 
it,  is  not  morally  binding  on  the  other  party  to  the 
agreement  ?  Can  any  man  believe  that  the  Asso- 
ciation is  a  body  incapable  of  entering  into  such 
a  compact,  in  any  such  sense,  that  the  other  con- 
tracting party  is  under  no  obligation  to  fulfill  its  en- 
gagements ?     Can  any  one  believe,  that  the  evils 


PLANOFUNION.  43 


Liberality  of  the  General  Association. 


of  "  this  unnatural  and  unconstitutional  system  of 
union,"  as  it  is  called,  are  such  as  to  require  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  in 
the  conscientious  discharge  of  its  duty,  to  declare 
it  abrogated?  It  scarcely  seems  possible,  that  any 
man  should  be  brought  into  the  sober  belief  of 
these  things. 

The  Plan  of  Union  was  adopted  by  all  parties 
with  good  intentions,  and  has  been  the  cause  of 
blessings  neither  few  nor  small,  to  those  for  whose 
benefit  it  was  intended.  The  General  Association 
of  Connecticut  acted,  at  the  first,  with  the  most 
liberal  feelings,  and  has,  ever  since,  maintained  a 
course  in  accordance  with  such  feelings.  The  min- 
isters and  churches  of  Connecticut,  in  this  matter, 
had  no  sectarian  designs.  They  gained  neither 
power,  nor  wealth,  nor  fame,  except  the  deserved 
and  lasting  reputation  of  christian  benevolence. 
The  only  boon  they  sought,  was  the  satisfaction  of 
doing  good  in  giving  the  bread  of  life  to  their  des- 
titute brethren  in  the  west,  and  the  rewards  prom- 
ised the  faithful  and  obedient  servants  of  Christ. 
They,  in  fact,  shut  the  door  against  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  Congregational  denomination,  which, 
but  for  the  Plan  of  Union,  might  have  been  greatly 
increased  in  numbers  and  influence,  through  the 
labors  of  their  missionaries  in  the  new  settlements. 
They  were  content  to  sow  the  field,  from  which 


44  ABROGATION     OF     THE 

Good  effects  of  the  Plan  of  Union. 

their  brethren  of  another  denomination,  should 
gather  the  harvest.  We  may  challenge  the  world 
to  show  an  example  of  more  disinterested  benevo- 
lent action. 

If  an  accession  of  numbers,  and  wealth,  and 
piety,  and  moral  influence,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
blessing  to  any  denomination  of  christians,  the 
Presbyterian  church,  in  the  language  of  one  of  her 
distinguished  ministers,  "owes  an  everlasting  debt 
of  gratitude  to  the  Connecticut  Missionary  Soci- 
ety." As  the  result  of  the  joint  action  of  its  mis- 
sionaries and  those  of  the  General  Assembly,  on  the 
basis  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  up  to  the  year  1828, 
more  than  six  hundred  Presbyterian  churches,  in 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  the  states  and 
territories  lying  west  of  them,  had  been  organized. 
Many  others  have  been  subsequently  added  to  the 
number.  Thus  the  waste  places  were  built  up,  the 
Plan  of  Union,  for  thirty-six  years,  being  a  bond  of 
fellowship,  between  Congregationalists  and  Presby- 
terians in  the  new  settlements,  and  the  source  of 
peace  and  harmony  to  the  infant  churches  of  the 
west.  Those  that  were  organized  under  it,  from 
the  Hudson  to  the  Mississippi,  appreciated  its  bless- 
ings ;  and  not  a  murmur  of  complaint  was  uttered 
against  it  by  those  who  had  seen  its  operations  and 
experienced  its  effects.  Indeed,  all  parties  were 
satisfied,  till  various  causes  came  into  existence  to 


PLANOFUNiON.  45 

True  reasons  for  the  abrogation. 

change  the  views  of  a  certain  portion  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  A  proper  understanding  of  these 
causes  will  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  true  rea- 
sons for  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  were 
not  its  unconstitutionality,  nor  the  all  edged  evils 
resulting  from  its  operation.  These  are  a  mere  sub- 
terfuge ;  a  plausible  pretext  for  the  measures  pur- 
sued. If  its  operation  had  been  to  increase  the 
power  of  a  particular  party,  the  constitutional  ques- 
tion might  still  be  at  rest,  and  the  harmless  Plan 
might  go  on,  accomphshing  the  good  for  which  it 
was  designed.  These  assertions  may  call  forth 
from  some  the  chai'ge  of  an  improper  impeachment 
of  motives ;  but  the  right  is  claimed  of  speaking 
freely,  provided  it  is  done  in  a  christian  spirit,  of 
the  motives  of  men,  when  openly  avowed,  or  clearly 
deducible  from  their  acts.  This  right  will  be  freely 
exercised  in  the  following  pages,  under  a  sense  of 
responsibility  to  God  for  the  intentions  of  the  wri- 
ter, and  for  the  effects  which  his  writings  are  cal- 
culated to  produce. 

The  next  step  will  be  to  unfold  the  real  causes 
of  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union ;  and  if  suc- 
cess attends  this  undertaking,  much  also  will  be 
done  to  reveal  the  causes  of  the  subsequent  acts  of 
the  last  General  Assembly ; — the  excision  of  the 
synods,  the  dissolution  of  the  presbytery,  and  the 
exclusion  of  the  Home  Missionary  and  Education 


46  ABROGATION,     &C. 

True  reasons  for  the  abrogation. 

Societies^- — for  these  acts  were  all  aimed  at  one 
general  object.  That  object  was  the  removal  of 
New  England  opmions  and  influence  from  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  The  correctness  of  this  state- 
ment has  been  questioned ;  but  its  truth  cannot 
reasonably  be  denied,  by  any  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  parties  in  that  church  from  its 
beginning  to  the  present  time. 


47 


CHAPTER   VI. 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH 


Adopting  Act. 


The  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States 
WEis  originally  composed  of  Presbyterians  from  Scot- 
land and  Ireland,  and  Congregationalists  chiefly  from 
New  England.  The  Congregationalists  were  at 
first  the  majority,  and,  as  has  already  been  remark- 
ed, the  two  denominations  united  on  the  common 
ground  of  a  belief  in  the  great  doctrines  of  the  bible, 
and  of  saving  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  union 
was  continued  for  a  period  of  twenty-five  years, 
without  any  written  confession  or  form  of  govern- 
ment. In  1729,  the  synod  of  Philadelphia,  then 
composed  of  four  presbyteries,  and  embracing  the 
whole  body  of  Presbyterian  ministers,  passed  an  act, 
not  however  without  considerable  opposition,  adopt- 
ing the  Westminster  confession  of  faith  with  the 
Assembly's  larger  and  shorter  catechism,  "  as  be- 
ing in  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good 
forms  of  sound  words,  and  systems  of  christian  doc- 
trine."* By  this  act,  a  declaration  of  assent  to  the 
confession  and  catechisms  was  required  '^in  all  the 

*  New  York  Observer,  1831,  p.  97. 


48 


ORIGIN     OF     THE 


Adopting  Act. 


essential  and  necessary  articles,"  by  members  of  the 
synod  and  candidates  for  the  ministry ;  at  the  same 
time  it  was  provided,  that,  "  in  case  any  minister 
of  this  synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry, 
shall  have  any  scruple  with  respect  to  any  article 
or  articles  of  said  confession  or  catechisms,  he  shall, 
at  the  time  of  his  making  said  declaration,  declare 
his  sentiments  to  the  presbytery  or  synod,  who 
shall  notwithstanding  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of 
the  ministry  within  our  bounds  and  to  ministerial 
communion,  if  the  synod  or  presbytery  shall  judge 
his  scruple  or  mistake  to  be  about  articles  not  es- 
sential and  necessary,  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  gov- 
ernment." "  The  synod  also  do  solemnly  agree, 
that  none  of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  opprobrious 
terms  of  those  that  differ  from  us  in  those  extra  es- 
sential and  not  necessary  points  of  doctrine ;  but 
treat  them  with  the  same  friendship,  kindness  and 
brotherly  love,  as  if  they  had  not  differed  from  us 
in  such  sentiments."  The  members  of  the  synod, 
"  after  proposing  all  the  scruples  any  of  them  had 
against  any  articles  and  expressions  of  the  confes- 
sion of  faith,  and  larger  and  shorter  catechisms  of 
the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  unani- 
mously agreed  in  the  solution  of  those  scruples, 
and  in  declaring  the  said  confession  and  catechisms 
to  be  the  confession  of  their  faith  ;"  only  disown- 
ing the  "controlling  power  of  the  civil  magistrate," 


PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH.  49 

Adopting  Act. 

with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry,  and 
the  rights  of  conscience. 

The  synod  also  "  unanimously  declared,  that  they 
judged  the  Directory  for  worship,  disciphne,  and 
goverimient  of  the  church,  commonly  annexed  to 
the  Westminster  confession,  to  be  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God  and  founded  thereupon,  and  therefore 
do  earnestly  recommend  it  to  all  their  members  to 
be  by  them  observed,  as  near  as  circumstances  will 
allow  and  christian  prudence  direct." 

Two  facts  are  strikingly  exhibited  in  the  adopt- 
ing act,  from  which  these  quotations  are  made. 
One  is,  that  diversity  of  sentiment  existed  in  the 
members  of  the  synod  of  1729 ;  the  other  is,  that 
in  the  exercise  of  a  catholic  spirit,  they  were  ready 
to  overlook  minor  differences  of  opinion,  and  make 
an  agreement,  in  substance  of  doctrine,  the  basis  of 
union.  They  declared,  that  "  we  do  not  claim  or 
pretend  to  any  authority  of  imposing  our  faith  upon 
other  men's  consciences;  but  do  profess  our  just 
dissatisfaction  and  abhorrence  of  such  impositions, 
and  utterly  disclaim  all  legislative  power  and  au- 
thority in  the  church,  being  willing  to  receive  one 
another  as  Christ  has  received  us,  to  the  glory  of 
God;  and  to  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  ordi- 
nances all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe 
Christ  will  at  last  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en." For  nearly  twenty  years,  the  Congregation- 
5 


50  ORIGINOFTHE 

Two  parties  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

alists  and  Presbyterians  thus  united,  maintained 
general  harmony ;  a  liberal  construction  of  their  ar- 
ticles of  faith,  and  the  exercise  of  christian  Catholi- 
cism, preventing  serious  contentions  and  unhappy 
divisions.  A  difference  of  views,  however,  respect- 
ing presbyterial  order  and  ministerial  qualifications, 
distinctly  marked  two  parties  in  the  church ;  and 
so  widely  did  they  differ  in  sentiment  and  feeling, 
that  there  was  needed  only  a  sufficiently  exciting 
cause  to  produce  a  separation.  That  cause  was  fur- 
nished by  the  labors  of  Mr.  Whitefield,  in  connec- 
tion with  whose  ministry,  glorious  and  extensive 
revivals  of  religion  took  place,  in  the  Presbyterian 
church  and  in  New  England.  The  strict  Presby- 
terians, called  at  that  time  the  Old  Side,  regarded 
Mr.  Whitefield  and  his  friends  as  "ignorant  and 
extravagant  enthusiasts."  The  other  party,  called 
the  New  Side,  or  New  Lights,  viewed  their  oppo- 
nents as  "Pharisaical  formahsts."*  Animosities  in- 
creased, until  the  synod  of  Philadelphia,  after  a  vio- 
lent controversy,  was  rent  asunder,  and  two  rival 
synods  were  formed,  viz.  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia. The  members  of  the  former  synod  were  al- 
most unanimously  the  friends  and  coadjutors  of  Mr. 
Whitefield;  while  those  of  the  latter  were,  gen- 
erally, if  not  universally,  his  decided  opposers. 

*  Miller's  Life  of  Rodgers. 


PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH.  51 

College  of  New  Jersey. 

The  separation  which  thus  took  place,  was  not 
strictly  marked  by  geographical  limits ;  but  the 
members  of  each  synod,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
were  scattered  over  the  whole  ground  occupied  by 
the  Presbyterian  church.  In  New  Jersey,  however, 
there  was  not  a  single  clergyman  who  belonged  to 
the  synod  of  Philadelphia.  The  whole  Presbyte- 
rian population  of  the  province,  was  zealously  at- 
tached to  the  interests  of  the  New  York  synod. 
This  rendered  it  in  the  view  of  that  synod,  a  proper 
field  for  the  location  of  a  seminary,  designed,  in 
part,  by  the  education  of  youth  for  the  christian 
ministry,  to  advance  the  interests  of  its  own  party. 
With  this  view,  the  college  of  New  Jersey  was 
founded ;  and  the  Rev.  Jonathan  Dickinson,  a  na- 
tive of  Massachusetts,  and  a  warm  friend  of  Mr. 
Whitefield,  was  appointed  its  first  president.  His 
successor  was  the  Rev.  Aaron  Burr,  a  native  of  Con- 
necticut, a  great  admirer  and  friend  also  of  Mr. 
Whitefield.  Then  succeeded  the  Rev.  Jonathan 
Edwards,  whose  friendship  for  Mr.  Whitefield,  and 
whose  active  labors  in  the  revivals  of  his  time,  are 
well  known.  Of  the  same  stamp,  were  the  Rev. 
James  Lockwood,  of  Wethersfield,  Conn.,  who  weis 
elected  to  the  presidency,  but  declined  ;  and  presi- 
dents Davies  and  Finley,  the  former  of  whom,  with 
the  Rev.  Gilbert  Tennent,  was  deputed  by  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  in  the  infancy  of  the  college,  to 


52  ORIGINOFTHE 


Reunion  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 


raise  funds  in  Great  Britain ;  and  the  latter,  was 
once  carried  out  of  the  colony  of  Connecticut  as  a 
vagrant,  under  a  law  enacted  by  the  legislature  of 
the  colony,  at  the  instigation  of  the  enemies  of  re- 
vivals and  the  opposers  of  Mr.  Whitefield.  Thus 
the  college  of  New  Jersey  originated  with  the  New 
Lights,  and  for  many  years  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Congregational  party,  from  whom  it  received  its 
chief  support.* 

The  synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  after 
remaining  divided  for  seventeen  years,  at  length, 
in  1758,  were  united.  The  evils  which  they  had 
experienced  by  division,  taught  both  parties  salutary 
lessons  respecting  forbearance  and  toleration ;  but 
diversity  of  opinion  on  many  important  subjects  was 
not  removed.  Party  feelings  and  distinctions  were 
not  wholly  laid  aside ;  much  less  did  the  original 
parties  undergo  a  complete  amalgamation.  The 
Scotch  and  Irish  Presbyterians  and  their  descend- 
ants, in  general,  were  Old  Side  still ;  while  those 
of  New  England  origin  and  sentiments  were  New 
Side,  and  almost  as  distinctly  marked  as  ever. 
These  two  parties,  with  a  slight  change  in  name, 
and  an  alteration  in  the  position  of  a  few  individ- 
uals, from  various  causes,  have  formed  the  basis  of 
the  two  great  parties  which  now  divide  the  Pres- 

*  Quarterly  Register,  Aug.  1834,  p.  42. 


PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH.  53 


Parties  the  same. 


byterian  church.  The  Old  School  and  New  School, 
are  the  Old  Side  and  New  Side,  the  old  divinity 
and  new  divinity  men  of  former  times.  The  nu- 
cleus of  each  of  the  present  parties,  not  only  existed 
in  1704,  but  has  ever  since  existed  the  same  thing 
as  ever,  and  now  essentially  determines  the  char- 
acter of  the  agglomerated  mass.  In  the  lapse  of 
years,  indeed,  under  the  operation  of  various  at- 
tracting and  repelling  influences  and  disturbing 
causes,  some  important  changes  have  taken  place, 
and  elective  affinities  have  resulted,  for  which  it 
may  be  difficult,  on  common  laws,  to  account ;  but 
no  one  can  reasonably  doubt,  that  strict  Presbyte- 
rianism,  on  the  one  hand,  distinguishes  the  Old 
School  now,  as  formerly ;  and  that  on  the  other, 
liberal  Presbyterianism,  as  at  the  first,  cheiracterizes 
the  New  School.  Liberal  Presbyterianism  being 
of  New  England  origin  and  wearing  the  impress  of 
New  England  sentiments,  is  the  object  of  attack 
with  the  Old  School  party ;  and  hence  the  present 
struggle  in  the  Presbyterian  church  relates  prima- 
rily to  New  England  opinions  and  influence.  For 
the  suppression  of  these  opinions,  and  the  removal 
of  this  influence,  the  majority  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1837,  adopted  their  revolutionary  meas- 
ures. Here  is  found  the  cause  of  the  abrogation  of 
the  Plan  of  Union,  and  the  proceedings  connected 
with  that  act.  Here  was  the  supposed  enemy 
6* 


54 

Parties  the  same. 


against  which,  from  a  diversity  of  interests  and 
motives,  the  forces  of  the  Old  School  were  ralUed, 
and  marched  in  mibroken  columns.  No  person 
who  has  read  the  debates  in  the  Philadelphia  con- 
vention, and  in  the  Assembly  of  1837,  and  espe» 
cially  the  pastoral  and  circular  letters  proceeding 
from  the  majority  of  the  Assembly,  can  require  any 
other  evidence  of  the  fact.  Much  less  should  any 
deny  it  who  voted  to  print  those  letters  in  their 
minutes,  and  lay  them  before  the  world  as  their 
official  acts. 


55 


CHAPTER    VII. 

CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 
The  causes  classified. 

The  immediate  object  of  the  abrogation  of  the 
Plan  of  Union  having  been  pointed  out  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  it  is  well  worth  while  to  inquire  after 
the  various  interests  which  operated  to  unite  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  in  the  measures 
designed  for  the  attainment  of  their  end.  For  this 
purpose,  the  history  of  events  cormected  with  the 
subject,  for  a  number  of  years  past,  must  be  ex- 
amined, that  it  may  be  seen  through  what  com- 
bined influences  unison  in  feeling  and  action,  in  re- 
gard to  the  measures  in  question,  was  produced. 
The  causes  referred  to,  may,  for  the  sake  of  con- 
venience, be  thus  classified  and  arranged, 

1.  The  recent  excitement  in  diflerent  parts  of 
the  church  in  respect  to  slavery  and  abohtion. 

2.  The  fear  of  encroachment  upon  the  supposed 
prerogatives  of  ''  the  church  in  her  distinctive  char- 
acter." 

3.  The  judicial  proceedings  of  the  church,  grow- 
ing out  of  real  diversity  of  doctrinal  views  ;  and, 

4  The  late  theological  controversies  of  New 
England,  and  especially  of  Connecticut. 


56      CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

Slavery  and  Abolition. 

The  order  in  which  these  causes  are  named,  is 
chosen,  not  with  reference  to  their  supposed  im- 
portance, but  for  the  sake  of  disposing  of  the  former 
two  with  a  brief  notice,  and  of  entering  more  fully 
into  an  investigation  of  the  others. 

1.  The  recent  excitement  in  different  parts  of 
the  United  States,  and  in  the  Presbyterian  church, 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  has  had  an 
influence  in  causing  the  proceedings  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1837. 

It  has  been  denied  by  some  that  slavery  had  any 
influence  on  the  proceedings  of  that  body.  By  oth- 
ers it  has  been  maintained,  that  the  abolition  move- 
ments at  the  north,  and  opposition  to  them  at  the 
south,  were  a  principal  cause  of  the  excision  of  the 
synods,  and  of  the  other  acts  of  the  Assembly  de- 
signed to  exclude  New  England  sentiments  from 
the  Presbyterian  church.  The  truth  probably  lies 
between  these  two  opinions,  though  nearer  the 
former  than  the  latter.  The  majority  of  the  As- 
sembly was,  no  doubt,  increased  by  the  addition  of 
some  southern  votes  which  would  not  have  been 
given,  as  they  were,  irrespective  of  the  slavery 
question.  It  was  suspected  that  New  School  men, 
as  a  body,  were  leaning  towards  abolitionism  more 
than  the  opposite  party ;  and  that  their  predomi- 
nance in  the  church  would  increase  the  moral  in- 
fluence of  the  north  against  the  system  of  slavery. 


CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY.      57 
Slavery  and  Abolition. 

It  was  even  feared  that  the  General  Assembly,  un- 
der certain  contingencies,  would  again  officially 
condemn  some  features  of  the  system,  as  practiced 
by  members  of  the  church,  if  not  the  system  itself, 
as  unscriptural  and  anti-christian.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  was  reason  to  believe,  that  so  long  as 
an  Old  School  majority  prevailed,  there  would  be 
no  direct  action  on  the  subject  in  the  highest  judi- 
catory of  the  church.  The  mind  of  Dr.  Baxter,  the 
president  of  the  Philadelphia  convention,  and  the 
defender  of  slavery  as  a  scriptural  institution,  was 
filled  with  anxiety  on  the  subject ;  and  he  was 
chiefly  induced,  it  would  seem  from  his  own  state- 
ment, to  become  a  member  of  the  convention  that 
he  might  feel  the  pulse  of  the  northern  abolitionists 
of  the  Old  School  party.  This  he  foimd  to  beat 
in  a  manner  denoting  a  healthy  state,  there  being 
no  indications  of  disease  except  in  one  or  two,  and 
in  these,  very  little  appearance  of  febrile  action. 
This  state  of  things  in  the  convention  no  doubt  ex- 
cited the  hope  in  some,  of  protecting  "  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  south,"  by  crushing  a  northern 
influence  in  the  General  Assembly.  To  under- 
stand how  the  question  of  slavery  and  abolition 
may  have  operated  in  the  manner  here  stated,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  attend  to  the  positions  in  which 
this  question  has  stood  at  diflerent  times  before  the 
General  Assembly ;  and  to  the  different  views  which 


58     CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

General  Assembly  on  slavery. 

are  at  present  entertained  in  different  sections  of  the 
Presbyterian  church. 

The  synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  in 
1787,  being  then  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the 
church,  adopted  the  following  "judgement,"  af- 
ter taking  into  consideration  an  overture  concern- 
ing slavery. 

"  The  synod  do  highly  approve  of  the  general 
principles  in  favor  of  universal  liberty  that  prevail 
in  America,  and  the  interest  which  many  of  the 
states  have  taken  in  promoting  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  They  earnestly  recommend  it  to  all  the 
members  belonging  to  their  communion,  to  give 
those  persons  who  are  at  present  held  in  servitude, 
such  good  education  as  to  prepare  them  for  the  bet- 
ter enjoyment  of  freedom.  And  they  moreover  re- 
commend that  masters,  whenever  they  find  ser- 
vants disposed  to  make  a  just  improvement  of  that 
privilege,  would  give  them  a  peculium,  or  grant 
them  sufficient  time  and  sufficient  means  of  pro- 
curing their  own  liberty  at  a  moderate  rate ;  that 
thereby  they  may  be  brought  into  society,  with 
those  habits  of  industry  that  may  render  them  use- 
ful citizens.  And  finally,  they  recommend  it  to  all 
their  people  to  use  the  most  prudent  measures,  con- 
sistent with  the  interests  and  the  state  of  civil  so- 
ciety in  the  countries  where  they  live,  to  procure 
eventually  the  final  abolition  of  slavery  in  America." 


CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY.      59 

General  Assembly  on  slavery. 

In  1794,  the  General  Assembly  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing comment  on  1  Tim.  1 :  10,  in  a  note  ap- 
pended to  the  142d  question  of  the  larger  cate- 
chism. ''  The  law  is  made  for  man-stealers.  This 
crime  among  the  Jews  exposed  the  perpetrators  of  it 
to  capital  punishment ;  and  the  apostle  here  classes 
them  with  sinners  of  the  first  rank.  The  word  he 
uses,  in  its  original  import,  comprehends  all  who 
are  concerned  in  bringing  any  of  the  human  race 
into  slavery  or  in  retaining  them  in  it.  Hominum 
fureSj  qui  servos  vel  liheros  ahducunt^  retinent,  ven- 
duntj  vel  emunt — Stealers  of  men  are  all  those  who 
bring  off  slaves  or  freemen,  and  keep,  sell,  or  buy 
them.  To  steal  a  freeman,  says  Grotius,  is  the 
highest  kind  of  theft.  In  other  instances,  we  only 
steal  human  property ;  but  when  we  steal  or  retain 
men  in  slavery,  we  seize  those  who  in  common 
with  ourselves,  are  constituted  by  the  original  grant, 
lords  of  the  earth." 

In  1815,  the  question  was  proposed  to  the  As- 
sembly, whether  a  person  who  views  slavery  as  a 
moral  evil,  highly  offensive  to  God  and  injurious  to 
the  interests  of  the  gospel,  ought  to  hold  commun- 
ion with  those  who  concur  with  him  in  sentiment, 
on  the  subject  upon  general  principles,  yet  for  par- 
ticular reasons  hold  slaves  and  tolerate  the  practice 
in  others  ?  Upon  this  question  the  Assembly  re- 
solved, "  that  as  the  same  difference  of  opinion  with 


60     CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 
General  Assembly  on  slavery. 

respect  to  slavery  takes  place  in  sundry  other  parts 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  notwithstanding  which, 
they  live  in  charity  and  peace,  according  to  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  apostles ;  it  is  hereby 
recommended  to  all  conscientious  persons,  and  es- 
pecially to  those  whom  it  immediately  respects,  to 
do  the  same.  At  the  same  time  the  General  As- 
sembly assure  all  the  churches  under  their  care, 
that  they  view  with  the  deepest  concern  any  ves- 
tiges of  slavery  which  may  exist  in  our  country ; 
and  refer  the  churches  to  the  records  of  the  General 
Assembly  published  at  different  times,"  as  express- 
ing their  present  views  on  the  subject. 

In  1816,  the  Assembly  resolved,  "  that  the  note 
connected  with  the  scripture  proofs  in  answer  to 
the  question  in  the  larger  catechism,  '  what  is  for- 
bidden in  the  eighth  commandment,'  in  which  the 
nature  of  the  crime  of  man-stealing  and  slavery  is 
dilated  upon,  he  omitted.'''' 

In  1818,  the  Assembly  made  a  full  expression  of 
its  views  on  slavery.  Amongst  other  things  it  de- 
clared, that  "  we  consider  the  voluntary  enslaving 
of  one  part  of  the  himian  race  by  another,  as  a  gross 
violation  of  the  most  precious  and  sacred  rights  of 
human  nature ;  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
law  of  God  which  requires  us  to  love  our  neighbor 
as  ourselves  ;  and  £is  totally  irreconcilable  with  the 
spirit  and  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which 


CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY.      61 

General  Assembly  on  slavery. 

enjoin,  that  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that 
men  should  do  to  you,  do- ye  even  so  to  them." 

After  stating  the  great  evils  inseparably  connect- 
ed with  slavery,  the  Assembly  says,  that  "from 
this  view  of  the  consequences  resulting  from  the 
practice  into  which  Christian  people  have  most  in- 
consistently fallen,  of  enslaving  a  portion  of  their 
brethren  of  mankind,  it  is  manifestly  the  duty  of 
all  christians,  when  the  inconsistency  of  slavery 
with  the  dictates  of  humanity  and  religion  has  been 
demonstrated,  and  is  generally  seen  and  acknow- 
ledged, to  use  their  honest,  earnest,  and  unwearied 
endeavors,  as  speedily  as  possible  to  efface  this  blot 
on  our  holy  religion,  and  to  obtain  the  complete 
abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  world." 

This  brief  notice  of  the  action  of  the  highest  ju- 
dicatory of  the  church  on  the  subject  of  slavery  du- 
ring the  thirty  one  years,  from  1787  to  1818,  will 
serve  to  shew,  that  even  in  that  period  the  subject 
was  surrounded  with  difficulties,  and  liable  to  pro- 
duce great  excitement  whenever  brought  forward 
for  discussion.  It  will  also  be  seen,  that  as  the 
church  extended  and  increased  in  numbers  in  the 
slave-holding  region,  to  calm  the  feelings  of  the 
south,  the  Assembly  was  obhged  to  modify  and 
soften  down  the  language  condemnatory  of  slavery; 
and  it  is  owing  no  doubt  to  the  increased  difficul- 
ties in  which  the  subject  has  since  been  involved, 
6 


62      CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

Testimony  of  the  Biblical  Repertory. 

and  the  tendency  to  undue  excitement  always  man- 
ifested, whenever  it  has  come  up,  that  no  official 
act  of  the  Assembly  has  been  passed  upon  it  for  the 
last  nineteen  years. 

The  following  extract  from  an  article  in  the 
Princeton  Biblical  Repertory  for  January,  1832.  as- 
cribed to  Dr.  Alexander,  in  which  the  writer  pro- 
poses and  recommends  a  reorganization  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  presents  a  correct  view  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  subject  has  agitated  the  ecclesi- 
astical judicatories. 

''  We  shall  advert,"  says  the  writer,  '•'  to  another 
consideration  which  in  our  opinion  strongly  recom- 
mends the  organization  now  proposed.  In  a  large 
extent  of  country  over  which  our  church  is  spread, 
domestic  slavery  exists  and  is  practiced  by  church 
members,  under  the  impression,  that  in  existing  cir- 
cumstances it  is  lawful,  and  authorized  by  the  pre- 
cepts and  practice  of  the  apostles.  But  those  parts 
of  the  church  where  slavery  is  not  tolerated,  view 
the  whole  thing  with  abhorrence,  and  cannot  exer- 
cise, in  many  cases  at  least,  charity  towards  the 
holders  of  slaves.  This  subject  has  been  threaten- 
ing to  disturb  and  divide  the  Presbyterian  church, 
almost  ever  since  it  had  an  existence ;  and  the  evil 
has  only  been  prevented  by  great  prudence  in  the 
General  Assembly.  They  have  commonly  con- 
trived to   evade  this  agitating  subject  j   but  this 


CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY.      63 

Assembly  of  1836  on  slavery. 

course  has  not  satisfied  all,  and,  before  long,  it  must 
come  up  in  such  a  form  as  greatly  to  disturb,  if  not 
rend  the  church  asunder.  But  by  the  proposed 
plan  of  arrangement,  all  the  churches  in  the  slave- 
holding  states,  will  be  separated  from  those  of  the 
non-slaveholding  states,  and  there  will  be  no  op- 
portunity of  their  coming  into  collision  in  the  eccle- 
siastical judicatories." 

If  any  further  proof  is  wanted  of  the  agitating  na- 
ture of  the  slavery  question,  we  may  gather  it  from 
the  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1836. 
The  discussion  of  the  subject  in  that  body  produ- 
ced a  great  ferment.  On  the  one  hand  it  was  con- 
tended, that  the  Assembly  had  no  right  to  pass 
judgment  in  regard  to  slavery,  or  even  to  discuss 
the  subject ;  that  by  its  former  action,  abolitionism 
and  Presbyterianism  were  completely  identified 
throughout  the  south ;  and  that  they  should  be 
compelled  to  abandon  Presbyterianism,  or  seek  pro- 
tection under  a  separate  organization.  On  the  other 
hand  it  was  maintained,  that  the  buying,  selling,  or 
holding  hmnan  beings  as  property,  is  in  the  sight 
of  God  a  heinous  sin,  demanding  the  censure  of  the 
church ;  and  that  the  General  Assembly  ought  to 
bear  its  decided  testimony  against  it.  And  to  such 
a  pitch  did  the  excitement  arise,  that  the  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  whole  subject  could  only  al- 
lay it. 


64     CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

Presbytery  of  Harmony  on  slavery. 


But  we  shall  become  better  acquainted  with  the 
views  at  present  entertained  in  the  different  parts 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
by  referring  to  some  of  the  resolutions  of  different 
presbyteries  and  synods.  In  Oct.  1836,  the  pres- 
bytery of  Harmony,  South  Carolina,  resolved  among 
other  things,  ''that  the  church  has  no  right  to  pre- 
scribe rules  and  dictate  principles  which  can  bind 
or  affect  the  conscience  in  reference  to  slavery  ;  and 
any  such  attempt  would  constitute  ecclesiastical 
tyranny  ;  that  slavery  has  existed  from  the  days  of 
those  good  old  slave-holders  and  patriarchs,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  that  the  existence  of  slavery 
is  not  opposed  to  the  will  of  God,  and  whosoever 
has  a  conscience  too  tender  to  recognize  this  rela- 
tion as  lawful,  is  righteous  over  much,  is  wise  above 
what  is  written,  and  has  submitted  his  neck  to  the 
yoke  of  man,  sacrificed  his  christian  liberty  of  con- 
science, and  leaves  the  infallible  word  of  God  for 
the  fancies  and  doctrines  of  men."  The  resolu- 
tions from  which  the  above  is  extracted,  were  re- 
ported by  Dr.  Witherspoon,  the  Moderator  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1836,  and  a  slave-holder ;  but 
they  are  doubtless  a  correct  expression  of  the  sen- 
timents of  many  southern  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

The  synod  of  Virginia,  in  Nov.  1836,  passed  an 
act  on  the  state  of  the  church,  which  was  ordered 


CAUSES     UNITINGTHE     MAJORITY.      65 

Exscinded  Synods  on  slavery. 

to  be  printed  in  the  Southern  Religious  Telegraph, 
aiid  which  contained  a  request  to  every  pastor 
within  the  Umits  of  the  body,  to  read  it  to  his 
charge.  In  this  document  they  say,  "one  thing 
which  presses  with  peculiar  force  on  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  the  south,  is  the  spirit  of  abolition 
as  lately  developed  in  some  parts  of  our  country  ;" 
and  after  arguing  to  shew  that  slavery  is  recognized 
in  scripture  and  not  unlawful,  they  solemnly  affirm, 
"  that  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  have  no  right  to  declare  that  relation  sinful, 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  teach  to  be  consistent 
with  the  most  unquestionable  piety."  They  add, 
"  the  likelihood  of  the  necessity  of  a  geographical 
division,  through  the  operation  of  this  fanaticism,  is 
not  so  great  as  it  was  some  time  ago  ;  yet  on  this 
subject,  be  the  danger  great  or  small,  a  vigilance 
corresponding  with  the  exigencies  of  the  times  is 
our  manifest  duty." 

In  opposition  to  sentiments  like  these,  northern 
presbyteries  and  synods  declare  themselves  fully 
against  the  system  of  slavery.  Three  of  the  ex- 
scinded synods,  if  not  the  whole  number,  have 
passed  resolutions  on  the  subject. 

In  Oct.  1835,  the  synod  of  Genesee  adopted  the 

following  preamble   and  resolutions ;     "  Whereas 

synod  believes  slavery  to  be  a  great  and  growing 

evil  and  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God,  afflicting  to  the 

6* 


66      CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

Synod  of  Cincinnati  on  slavery. 

soul  of  the  christian  and  alarming  to  the  fears  of 
the  patriot ;  and  considering  it  our  duty  as  chris- 
tians to  seek,  by  all  christian  measures,  the  utter 
extinction  of  slavery  from  the  church ;  therefore, 
resolved,  that  we  deem  it  proper  respectfully  to  re- 
quest, and  we  do  hereby  request,  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  church  to  take  order  on 
this  subject,  and  to  devise  such  measures  as  in  their 
wisdom  shall  be  judged  safest  and  best  to  effect  the 
extinction  of  the  evil  in  our  own  church,  at  as  early 
a  day  as  possible." 

The  synod  of  Western  Reserve  also  expressed  its 
opinion,  "that  slavery  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States  is  a  sin  against  God  ;  a  high-handed  trespass 
on  the  rights  of  man ;  a  great  physical,  political, 
and  social  evil,  which  ought  to  be  immediately  and 
universally  abandoned."  The  synod  of  Utica  de- 
clared its  belief,  that  "  slavery  as  it  exists  in  these 
United  States,  is  repugnant  both  to  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  gospel ;  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  law 
of  love  ;  a  sin  against  God  and  man." 

The  synod  of  Cincinnati  also  resolved  in  1836, 
"  that  the  presbyteries  and  churches  circulate  ex- 
tensively, petitions  to  the  next  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  to  enjoin  it  on  all  the 
presbyteries  and  church  sessions  under  their  care, 
to  exclude  from  the  communion  of  the  church  all 
persons  who  shall  claim  the  right  of  property  in 
their  fellow-men." 


CAUSES     UNITING    THE     MAJORITY.      67 

Action  of  the  Assembly  on  slavery  deprecated. 

The  resolutions  now  quoted,  show  the  opposing 
sentiments  between  the  north  and  the  south,  on  a 
subject,  in  which  the  feehngs  of  men  for  the  last 
three  or  four  years  have  been  strongly  excited; 
and  there  are  various  considerations  which  show, 
that  slavery  had  some  connection  at  least  with  the 
doings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837. 

In  those  quarters,  in  which  a  division  of  the 
church  was  threatened  on  account  of  abolition, 
there  was  less  of  threat,  as  there  was  more  of  prob- 
ability, that  an  Old  School  majority  would  be  gained 
in  the  General  Assembly.  Take  the  language  of 
the  synod  of  Virginia  before  quoted,  that  "  the  like- 
lihood of  the  necessity  of  a  geographical  division 
of  the  church  through  the  operation  of  this  fanati- 
cism is  not  so  great  as  it  was,  some  time  ago;" 
and  what,  in  connection  with  other  facts,  does  it 
go  to  prove  ?  The  action  of  the  Assembly,  decla- 
ring "  slavery  sinful,"  and  impeaching  the  christian 
character  of  any  man  because  he  is  a  slave-holder, 
was  a  thing  especially  deprecated.  This  was  what 
threatened  a  division  of  the  church.  But  how  was 
the  likelihood  of  this  diminished  in  the  view  of  the 
synod,  in  Nov.  1836  ?  No  doubt  by  the  prospect  of 
a  majority  in  the  General  Assembly,  who  would 
be  content,  at  least,  to  let  the  matter  of  slavery  rest. 
This  was  the  ground  which  Princeton  would  take, 
and  on  which  the  Old  School  would  agree ;  and 


68      CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 
A  mutual  understanding  on  the  subject. 

hence  the  votes  of  the  synod  of  Virginia,  which,  in 
1834,  were  with  two  exceptions,  given  against  the 
memorial  to  that  Assembly,  were  in  1837  given 
unanimously  in  favor  of  the  principal  measures  re- 
commended by  the  Philadelphia  convention.  There 
appears  £ilso  to  have  been  a  tacit  agreement  on  the 
part  of  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  that 
the  subject  of  slavery  should  not  come  before  that 
body.  All  the  papers  relating  to  it  were  retained 
in  the  hands  of  the  committee  till  a  late  period  of 
the  session,  when  they  were  returned  to  the  house 
without  report ;  and  on  motion  of  the  chairman  of 
that  committee,  the  whole  subject  was  unceremo- 
niously Igiid  on  the  table.  Can  this  be  satisfactorily 
explained,  except  on  the  supposition  of  a  mutual 
imderstanding  between  the  abolitionists  of  the  Old 
School  and  their  southern  brethren  of  the  majority, 
that,  letting  this  exciting  topic  alone,  they  should 
march  in  unbroken  ranks  against  heresy ;  while 
the  south  would  in  a  measure  gain  its  object,  by 
excluding  New  England  influence  from  the  Pres- 
byterian church. 

But  the  strongest  evidence  of  the  influence  of 
slavery  in  uniting  the  dominant  party  in  these 
measures,  is  derived  from  the  fact,  that  the  subject 
had  been  agitated  in  nearly  all  the  ecclesiastical 
bodies  in  the  land,  and  was  occasioning  more  ex- 
citement throughout  the  country  than  any  other ; 


CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY.      69 

Slavery  not  discussed  in  the  Assembly  of  1837. 

and  that  southern  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  are  anxious  to  prevent  even  its  discussion 
in  the  General  Assembly.  The  supposition  caimot 
be  easily  reconciled  with  the  laws  of  the  human 
mind, — that  a  subject  awakening  such  intense  and 
general  interest,  should  have  had  no  place  in  the 
views,  and  feelings,  and  motives,  which  actuated 
ministers  and  elders  from  the  slave-holding  region, 
in  giving  their  votes  on  questions  of  the  nature  of 
those  which  came  before  the  Assembly  of  1837. 
They  knew  that  the  great  mass  of  northern  chris- 
tians, are  in  principle  opposed  to  the  system  of 
slavery.  They  entertained  serious  alarm  respect- 
ing the  movements  of  northern  abolitionists.  They 
were  desirous  to  prevent  all  interference  of  the  north 
with  their  "domestic  institutions,"  and  with  the 
laws  and  customs  relating  to  them.  Many  were 
unwilling  to  tolerate  even  the  expression  of  an 
opinion  unfavorable  to  the  rights  of  masters  or  the 
condition  of  slaves.  And  what  more  probable,  than 
that  under  such  circumstances  they  should  be  in- 
duced to  sustain  measures  which  a  few  years  ago 
they  would  have  rejected  ?  Says  Dr.  Baxter,  presi- 
dent of  the  convention  of  1837,  in  justification  of 
the  measures  of  the  Assembly,  ''  another  advantage 
of  the  course  pursued,  if  it  be  sustained  and  carried 
out  by  the  churches,  is,  that  it  will  put  an  end  to 
the  abolition  question  and  disturbance  in  the  Pres- 


70      CAUSES     UNITING     THE     MAJORITY. 

Slavery  not  discussed  in  the  Assembly  of  1837. 

byterian  church." — "I  have  no  doubt,  that  if  the 
separation  begun  should  be  carried  out,  the  Presby- 
terian church,  by  getting  clear  of  the  New  School, 
will  at  the  same  time  get  clear  of  abolition.* 

Can  it  be  doubted  that  under  impressions  like 
these,  such  men  as  Dr.  Baxter,  and  other  advocates 
of  slavery  as  a  scriptural  institution,  would  vote  for 
measures  of  reform,  which,  if  in  their  view  discon- 
nected entirely  from  that  subject,  they  would  cor- 
dially disapprove  ?  And  did  not  some  of  the  major- 
ity of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  act  under  pre- 
cisely such  impressions  ?  But  undue  weight  must 
not  be  given  to  slavery  and  abolition  as  a  cause  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly.  Other  causes 
will  be  developed  in  the  progress  of  this  work, 
which  will,  it  is  believed,  make  the  influence  of 
that  now  considered,  appear  of  minor  importance. 

*  New  York  Observer,  1837,  p.  110. 


71 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

ENCROACHMENTS     ON     HIGH     CHURCH 
PREROGATIVES      FEARED. 

The  church  in  her  distinctive  character. 

A  SECOND  cause  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  and  of  the  subsequent  acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1837,  may  be  found  in  the  fears,  en- 
tertained by  some,  of  encroachments  upon  the  sup- 
posed prerogatives  of  the  church  in  her  distinctive 
character. 

There  are,  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  those  who 
not  only  look  upon  her  form  of  government  as  a 
perfect  ecclesiastical  system,  but  as  appointed  by 
divine  authority.  Her  ministers,  and  elders,  and 
deacons,  are  the  bishops,  and  elders,  and  deacons  of 
apostolic  days ;  and  her  church  sessions,  and  pres- 
byteries, and  synods,  and  General  Assembly,  are  es- 
sentially judicatories  divinely  constituted.  Hence 
the  church  in  all  matters  of  morality  or  religion, 
must  act  in  her  distinctive  character.  In  her  capa- 
city as  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  she  must,  through 
her  own  judicatories,  fulfill  the  commands  of  the 
gospel.  Others,  who  do  not  come  quite  up  to  the 
standard  of  this  high  church  orthodoxy,  look  upon 


72  ENCROACHMENTS     FEARED. 

The  standards  of  the  church  how  regarded. 

the  Presbyterian  organization  as  one  of  unrivalled 
excellence,  and  to  be  maintained  according  to  the 
letter  of  her  constitution.  Her  confession  of  faith 
and  form  of  discipline  must  be  adopted,  not  as  a 
system  from  which  there  may  be  dissent  in  some 
particulars  of  minor  importance,  as  was  the  usage 
at  first ;  but  they  must  be  received  as  true  to  the 
letter,  and  as  being  in  every  word  and  expression, 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  faith  of  him  who 
adopts  them.  Indeed,  the  standards  of  the  church 
seem  to  be,  in  the  estimation  of  some,  almost  para- 
mount to  the  bible,  as  a  means  of  correct  doctrinal 
instructions  and  a  safeguard  against  error.  Their  ap- 
peal is  to  the  standards  of  the  church,  and  the  least 
deviation  in  sentiment  or  phreiseology  from  them,  is 
in  their  view  little  better  than  heresy.  Hence  their 
opposition  to  the  principles  of  accommodation  in 
the  Plan  of  Union,  and  to  voluntary  associations. 
Elders  set  apart  by  ordination,  must  be  the  only 
lay  members  of  judicatories.  Delinquents  must  be 
called  to  account  by  church  sessions,  and  go  through 
all  the  process  of  discipline  prescribed  in  the  con- 
stitution. Any  mixture  of  Congregational  princi- 
ples of  government  can  by  no  means  be  tolerated. 
How  much  these  high  church  notions  depend  upon 
the  present  position  of  parties  in  the  Presbyterian 
body,  it  is  not  essential  to  determine  ;  but  that  the 
ideal  perfection  of  pure  Presbyterianism,  as  it  exists 


ENCROACHMENTS     FEARED.  73 

Difference  among  the  Old  School. 

in  the  minds  of  many,  has  had  its  influence  in 
urging  them  on  to  a  course  of  bold  and  decided 
measures  for  reform,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt. 

There  is,  however,  among  the  Old  School  par- 
ty, a  dilTerence  of  opinion,  in  regard  to  voluntary 
associations.  Some  seem  disposed  to  tolerate,  if 
not  support,  those  which  are  not  concerned  in  in- 
troducing New  England  theology  and  Congrega- 
tionalism into  the  Presbyterian  church.  Others 
would  discountenance  the  American  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions,  and  even  the  American  Temperance 
Society,  because  they  are  not  church  organizations. 
The  church  in  her  distinctive  character,  they  think, 
must  have  the  control  of  all  benevolent  opera- 
tions in  which  her  members  are  engaged,  lest  she 
should  lose  her  power  and  influence,  and  open  a 
door  for  the  introduction  of  disorder  and  heresy. 
But  not  to  attribute  too  much  to  the  influence  of 
these  high  chm-ch  notions  in  forming  the  majority  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837,  it  ought  to  be  understood  that 
the  opposition  to  voluntary  associations,  manifested 
in  the  acts  of  discountenancing  the  American  Home 
Missionary  and  American  Education  Societies,  is 
not  to  be  ascribed  wholly  or  chiefly  to  a  preference 
of  church  organizations,  in  themselves  considered. 
The  scruples  of  most,  in  regard  to  conducting  be- 
nevolent operations  on  the  voluntary  plan,  might 
7 


74  ENCROACHMENTS     FEARED. 

Difference  among  the  Old  School. 

probably  have  been  lulled  to  sleep,  if  the  proscribed 
societies  had  not  been  supposed  to  exert  an  influ- 
ence in  spreading  opinions  disliked  by  the  Old 
School,  and  to  have  had  a  practical  efiect  in  chang- 
ing majorities  in  the  church  judicatories.  The 
strength  of  opposition  to  the  different  societies  pa- 
tronized by  portions  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  is 
manifestly  proportioned  to  the  extent  in  which  they 
are  believed  to  diminish  the  relative  power  of  the 
dominant  party ;  as  appears  from  the  degree  of  fa- 
vor bestowed  on  some  in  comparison  with  others. 
Enough  has  now  been  said  to  exhibit  in  its  due 
weight  the  influence  of  the  cause  here  considered, 
in  contributing  to  form  a  majority  in  the  Assembly 
for  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union  and  for  adopting 
the  consequent  measures. 


75 


CHAPTER    IX. 

DIFFERENCE      IN      THEOLOGY     BETWEEN 
THE      OLD     AND      NEW      SCHOOL. 

Adam,  the  head  of  our  race. 

A  THIRD  cause  concerned  in  uniting  a  majority 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  in  the  measures 
adopted  by  that  body,  may  be  found,  as  already 
stated,  in  the  judicial  proceedings  of  the  church, 
growing  out  of  a  real  diversity  of  doctrinal  views. 

In  order  to  unfold  the  operation  of  this  cause,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  shew,  in  what  the  diversity 
consists ;  and  to  give  some  account  of  the  proceed- 
ings to  which  reference  is  here  made.  The  dif- 
ference of  theological  sentiment  between  the  Old 
School  and  New  School  parties,  is,  in  many  re- 
spects, of  a  marked  character.  It  may  not,  how- 
ever, be  easy  to  exhibit  their  views  on  controverted 
points,  so  as  to  make  visible  every  shade  of  distinc- 
tion ;  but  it  will  not  be  a  difficult  matter  to  draw 
the  prominent  features  of  the  two  schemes,  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  make  them  duly  recognized,  and 
render  their  difference  apparent. 

It  is  a  favorite  doctrine  of  the  Old  School,  that 
God  constituted  Adam  properly  and  truly,  the  head 


76  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 

Nature  and  extent  of  the  atonement. 

and  representative  of  our  race,  and,-  with  him,  as 
such,  entered  into  covenant ;  that  our  first  parent, 
acting  in  behalf  of  all  his  posterity,  involved  them 
in  the  guilt  of  his  transgression,  so  that,  for  his  act, 
they  became  justly  liable  to  eternal  death.  Some 
explain  this  participancy  in  guilt  and  liability  to 
punishment,  to  be  by  imputation  ;  on  the  ground, 
that  God  might  appoint  Adam  to  act  for  his  de- 
scendants, and  hold  them  really  responsible  for  his 
acts,  and  treat  them  according  to  his  deserts.  Oth- 
ers maintain,  that  his  posterity  acted  with  him  in 
his  transgression,  and  thus  involved  themselves  in 
the  ruin  of  his  fall. 

Closely  allied  to  the  doctrine  just  stated,  is  an- 
other respecting  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment. God,  say  they,  entered  into  covenant  from 
eternity  with  his  son  Jesus  Christ,  to  save  a  part  of 
our  race,  on  condition  that  he  should  suffer  the  pun- 
ishment due  to  their  sins ;  Christ,  in  making  an 
atonement,  literally  bore  the  penalties  of  the  law  in 
his  own  person,  and,  by  the  full  payment,  in  an  ad- 
equate amount  of  suffering,  of  the  debt  due  to  di- 
vine justice,  purchased  the  redemption  of  the  elect : 
they  alone  were  embraced  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
and  his  righteousness  becomes,  by  imputation,  really 
and  truly  theirs,  through  faith.  Some  who  adopt 
this  view  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment, admit  its  sufficiency  for  the  iion  elect,  if  so 


BETWEEN   THE    OLD   AND   NEW    SCHOOL.    77 

Man's  inability. 

intended ;  but  as  they  are  not  included  in  the  cove- 
nant, the  atonement  can  be  regarded  in  no  proper 
sense,  as  being  made  on  their  account.  They  can- 
not, therefore,  share  in  the  regenerating  grace  of 
God,  nor  partake  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death. 

Another  sentiment  nearly  connected  with  the 
doctrine  first  mentioned,  is,  that  mankind,  having 
lost  the  divine  image  in  their  transgression  and  fall 
with  Adam,  and  being  born  into  the  world  with  a 
constitution  morally  depraved,  have  no  ability,  m 
any  sense,  either  to  obey  the  command  of  God,  or 
to  comply  with  the  conditions  of  salvation  in  the 
gospel.  The  power  to  right  moral  action  having 
been  destroyed  by  the  fall,  is  communicated  only 
by  sovereign  grace.  Hence,  regeneration  is  an 
effect  of  the  Spirit's  operations,  in  which  man  is 
entirely  passive  ;  as  much  so  as  in  his  original  crea- 
tion. 

This  scheme  of  course  embraces  peculiar  views 
respecting  moral  agency.  It  makes  man  responsi- 
ble for  actions  not  his  own,  and  lays  him  under  ob- 
ligation to  do,  what  he  is  acknowledged  to  have  no 
ability  to  perform.  It  also  affects  the  nature  of  di- 
vine influence.  Man  being  physically  depraved,  un- 
dergoes, in  regeneration,  a  physical  change,  which 
is  wrought  by  creative  omnipotence.  It  likewise 
resolves  the  moral  government  of  God  into  a  system 
of  divine  operations,  having  their  reasons  in  divine 
7* 


78  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 

Doctrinal  belief  of  the  New  School. 

sovereignty,  without  a  suitable  regard  to  the  nature 
of  moral  beings,  and  to  the  moral  relations  which 
exist  in  the  universe.  Its  practical  tendency  is,  m 
some  measure,  that  of  Antinomianism,  in  regard  to 
the  obligation  and  duty  of  sinners,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  truth  on  the  mind. 

This  representation  of  the  doctrines  which  dis- 
tinguish the  Old  School,  it  is  believed,  will  cor- 
rectly apply  to  the  majority  of  that  party  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  who  regard  the  New  England 
doctrines  as  heretical,  and  who,  for  the  last  few 
years,  have  been  actively  engaged  in  exposing  and 
eradicating,  what  they  consider,  fundamental  error. 
Their  system  of  orthodoxy,  if  correctly  understood, 
includes,  as  essential,  the  three  principal  points 
above  stated,  with  their  explanations ;  and  also,  by 
implication,  the  other  views  subjoined.  The  sys- 
tem, however,  is  differently  modified  by  different 
individuals.  Points  of  fundamental  importance  in 
the  view  of  some,  are  by  others  regarded  less  im- 
portant; while  there  is  considerable  diversity  in 
the  mode  of  explaining  doctrines,  amongst  those 
who  agree  in  the  manner  of  stating  them. 

The  doctrinal  belief  of  the  New  School  may  be 
learned  from  the  writings  of  distinguished  individ- 
uals of  that  class  of  divines,  as  well  as  from  docu- 
ments drawn  up  in  the  form  of  articles  of  faith,  and 
from  statements  and  explanations  made  before  the 


BETWEEN   THE    OLD    AND    NEW    SCHOOL.    79 
Connection  with  Adam. — Unlimited  atonement, 

judicatories  of  the  church.  Perhaps,  however,  no 
better  abstract  of  their  doctrines  can  be  given,  than 
one  taken  from  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the 
Assembly  of  1837,  on  the  subject  of  doctrinal  er- 
rors.* 

In  respect  to  our  connection  with  Adam  they 
hold,  that  he  was  so  constituted  "the  head  and 
representative  of  the  race,  that,  as  a  consequence  of 
his  transgression,  all  mankind  become  morally  cor- 
rupt, and  liable  to  death,  temporal  and  eternal." 
Thus  the  posterity  of  Adam  have  "  a  natural  bias 
to  evil  resulting  from  the  first  apostacy,  which  leads 
invariably  and  certainly  to  actual  transgression;" 
but  ''  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  pos- 
terity, in  the  sense  of  a  literal  transfer  of  persond 
qualities,  acts,  and  demerit." 

In  regard  to  the  atonement  they  hold,  that  the 
sufierings  and  death  of  Christ  were  truly  vicarious, 
or  a  suitable  substitute  for  the  punishment  due  to 
transgressors  ;  and,  though  not  the  literal  penalty  of 
the  law,  were  in  the  view  of  infinite  wisdom  a  full 
equivalent,  so  that  by  virtue  of  Christ's  atoning 
sacrifice,  overtures  of  mercy  2ire  sincerely  made  to 
the  whole  race,  and  salvation  secured  to  all  that 
believe,  solely  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ. 

*  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  p.  484. 


80  DIFFERENCE     IN    THEOLOGY 

Man,  an  accountable  agent. 

They  also  hold,  that  "  sinners  have  all  the  fac- 
ulties necessary  to  a  perfect  moral  agency  and  a 
just  accountability ;"  but  such  is  their  love  of  sin 
and  opposition  to  God  and  his  law,  that,  "they 
never  will  comply  with  the  commands  of  God,  in- 
dependently of  the  renewing  influence  or  almighty 
energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  by  His  special 
operations  in  regeneration,  the  will  of  the  sinner  is 
determined  to  that  which  is  good,  so  that  he  freely 
embraces  the  gospel." 

This  scheme  is  substantially  that  of  Edwards 
and  the  New  England  divines  *  It  acknowledges 
man  as  a  moral  agent,  and  views  him  as  so  acting 
under  the  government  of  God,  that,  though  natu- 
rally inclined  to  evil,  his  voluntary  disobedience  to 
the  divine  law,  is  the  only  just  ground  of  his  con- 
demnation ;  and  that  no  violence  is  ofl*ered  to  his 
will  in  any  divine  influences  which  are  exerted 

*  Edwards  held  in  a  different  sense  the  doctrine  of  imputation. 
*'  The  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin,"  he  regarded  as  "  the  lia- 
bleness  or  exposedness  of  Adam's  posterity,  in  the  divine  judg- 
ment, to  partake  of  the  punishment  of  that  sin.''  (Works,  Edi- 
tion 1809,  vol.  vi,  p.  130.)  He  accounts  for  the  justice  of  their 
punishment,  on  the  ground,  that  they  were  one  with  Adam,  as 
the  branches  with  the  root,  or  the  members  with  the  head. 
"  The  first  existing  of  a  corrupt  disposition  in  their  hearts,"  is, 
as  it  were,  "  the  extended  pollution"  of  his  first  act,  or  "  the  inhe- 
rence of  the  sin  of  the  head"  in  the  members,  in  their  consent 
and  concurrence  with  the  head  in  that  first  act.  p.  437.  The 
Princeton  divines,  as  well  as  the  New  School,  reject  this  view  of 
imputation. 


BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  SCHOOL.  81 

Progress  of  the  New  School  opinions. 

upon  him.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  difference  of 
views  between  the  Old  and  New  School,  on  the 
points  of  doctrine  which  have  now  been  referred 
to,  will,  in  various  respects,  modify  their  whole 
creed ;  and  it  is  not  surprising,  that  under  certain 
excitements,  it  should  occasion  in  the  Old  School 
serious  apprehensions  for,  what  they  regard,  "  the 
faiith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  they  who 
hold  the  tenets  of  the  New  School  should  attack, 
with  warmth,  the  peculiar  dogmas  of  that  theology 
which  teaches  a  limited  atonement,  participancy  in 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  natural  inability  to  love 
aiid  obey  God. 

The  discussion  of  these  subjects  in  past  yeajrs, 
has  resulted  in  the  progress  of  the  theological  views 
maintained  by  the  New  School.  The  publication 
of  the  Triangle,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  its 
spirit  and  mode  of  attack,  did  much  in  the  city  of 
New  York  and  elsewhere,  to  render  the  doctrines 
which  it  opposed  unpopular,  and  to  advance  New 
England  sentiments.  The  preaching  and  writings 
of  several  distinguished  ministers  of  New  England 
origin,  together  with  the  introduction  of  others  into 
the  Presbyterian  church,  were  productive  of  simi- 
lar results ;  and  there  was  a  gradual  approach  to- 
wards a  transfer  of  power  and  influence,  from  one 
to  the  other  side  in  the  controversy.    So  long,  how- 


82  DIFFERENCE     IN    THEOLOGY 

Alarm  of  the  Old  School. — Mr.  Barnes'  sermon. 

ever,  as  the  Old  School  party  experienced  no  such 
sensible  diminution  of  relative  numbers  as  to  cause 
them  to  fear  the  loss  of  their  ascendency,  they  ex- 
ercised a  good  degree  of  patience  and  forbearance 
towards  their  brethren  of  the  New  School.  But 
when  the  control  of  affairs  was  likely  to  pass  from 
their  hands,  they  became  greatly  alarmed  for  their 
peculiar  orthodoxy.  The  importance  of  their  dis- 
tinguishing tenets  became  magnified  in  their  own 
minds,  and  the  reputed  errors  of  their  opponents, 
which  were  once  tolerated,  now  assumed  the  fright- 
ful form  of  dangerous  and  hideous  heresy.  The 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  must  be  defended, 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  secure  the  desired  pre-emi- 
nence. 

The  first  Presbyterian  church  in  Philadelphia, 
ranking  in  theological  sentiment  with  the  New 
School,  occupied  a  commanding  position,  and  was 
an  object  of  importance  to  be  gained,  if  possible,  to 
the  other  side.  Its  pastor,  the  Rev.  James  P.  Wil- 
son, D.  D.,  was  about  to  retire  from  the  field  of  his 
labors,  and  a  successor  was  needed.  The  eyes  of 
the  congregation  were  turned  to  the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes,  of  Morristown,  New  Jersey,  whose  ministra- 
tions had  recently  been  attended  by  one  of  the 
greatest  reviveds  of  religion  ever  known  in  this 
coxmtry.  Mr.  Barnes  had  preached  a  sermon  enti- 
tled "  The  Way  of  Salvation,"  which,  in  the  be- 


BETWEEN   THE    OLD    AND   NEW    SCHOOL.    83 

Proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  respecting  his  call. 

ginning  of  the  year  1830,  was  printed,  and  soon 
after  circulated  among  the  electors  of  the  first 
church,  by  some  of  the  members  who  designed 
to  call  him  to  become  their  pastor.  The  sermon 
was  reviewed  by  a  member  of  the  presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  of  opposite  views,  who  urged  objec- 
tions against  its  doctrines.  Dr.  Wilson  wrote  in  its 
defense  ;  and,  in  several  articles  published  on  each 
side,  the  doctrines  of  the  discourse  were  fully  dis- 
cussed. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  first  Presbyterian  church 
proceeded  to  give  Mr.  Barnes  a  unanimous  call ; 
and  the  question  then  came  before  the  presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  whether  the  call  should  be  allowed 
to  be  prosecuted  before  the  presbytery  of  Eliza- 
bethtown,  of  which  Mr.  Barnes  was  a  member. 
The  sermon  was  made  the  sole  ground  of  opposi- 
tion, and  after  nearly  four  days  were  spent  in  dis- 
cussion, the  presbytery  decided  by  a  large  majority 
in  favor  of  prosecuting  the  call.  These  proceed- 
ings took  place  in  April,  1830.  In  June  following, 
Mr.  Barnes  presented  to  the  presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, a  certificate  of  dismission  and  recommendar. 
tion  from  the  presbytery  of  Elizabethtown.  His 
opponents  being  frustrated,  as  has  been  shewn,  in 
their  first  attempt,  were  not  satisfied,  but  undertook 
to  prevent  his  admission  to  the  presbytery,  and  his 
installation  over  the  church  to  which  he  had  been 


84  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 

Mr.  Barnes'  sermon  tried. 

unanimously  called.  An  unsuccessful  effort  was 
made  to  procure  the  postponement  of  a  motion  to 
admit  him  a  member,  until  he.  had  been  publicly 
examined  in  regard  to  his  disputed  doctrinal  senti- 
ments. A  written  statement  of  his  views,  however, 
was  presented  to  the  presbytery,  designed  to  satisfy 
those  who  were  suspicious  of  his  orthodoxy ;  and,  af- 
ter much  discussion  and  one  previous  adjournment, 
he  was  finally  received  by  a  vote  of  nearly  two- 
thirds  in  his  favor.  On  the  25th  of  June,  Mr.  Barnes 
was  inducted  into  his  present  charge.  His  opponents 
preferred  a  complaint  to  the  synod  of  Philadelphia 
against  the  proceedings  of  the  presbytery,  aiid  were 
referred  back  with  an  injunction  to  the  presbytery, 
^'  to  hear  and  decide  on  their  objections  to  the  or- 
thodoxy of  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take 
such  order  on  the  whole  subject,  as  is  required  by 
a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  church  and  its  ac- 
knowledged doctrines  and  order."  The  friends  of 
Mr.  Barnes  in  the  presbytery,  insisted  that  the  com- 
plainants were  accusers,  and,  therefore,  were  not  to 
be  judges  in  the  matter  referred  by  the  synod.  On 
the  other  side  it  was  claimed,  that  the  sermon  was 
the  subject  of  complaint,  and  that  no  process  was 
instituted  against  its  author.  On  this  ground  the 
presbytery  proceeded,  and  a  majority  adopted  a 
minute  as  the  "  final  decision,"  severely  censuring 
the  sermon,  and  reflecting  on  the  theological  senti- 


BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  SCHOOL.  85 


Case  brought  before  the  General  Assembly. 

merits  of  Mr.  Barnes.  They  also  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  communicate  to  him  the  result  of  the  de- 
liberations of  the  presbytery,  and  to  converse  with 
him,  with  the  view  of  procuring  a  renunciation  of 
his  alledged  errors.  The  proceedings  were  com- 
plained of  by  the  minority,  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1831,  and  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  that  body,  of  whom  Dr.  Miller  was  the 
chairman.  The  committee  recommended  the  adop- 
tion of  resolutions  in  substance  as  follows :  that  the 
presbytery  of  Philadelphia  were  not  actuated  by 
improper  motives  in  their  proceedings  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  that  his  sermon  contains  a  num- 
ber of  unguarded  and  objectionable  passages ;  yet, 
especially  after  the  explanations  given  by  him  of 
those  passages,  the  presbytery  ought  to  have  suf- 
fered the  whole  to  pass  without  further  notice  ;  and 
ought  now  to  suspend  all  further  proceedings  in 
the  case  ;  and  that,  for  the  promotion  of  peace,  reg- 
ular steps  should  be  taken  to  divide  the  presby- 
tery.'* The  report  of  the  committee  was  adopted 
by  nearly  a  unanimous  vote,  and  the  Assembly 
immediately  united  in  an  act  of  special  prayer  and 
thanksgiving,  in  view  of  the  happy  result. 

*  The  presbytery  was  divided  by  an  act  of  the  Assembly  of 
1832,  the  synod  having  refused  to  do  it. 

8 


86  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 


Duffield  on  regeneration. 


The  auspicious  termination,  as  it  was  believed, 
of  this  unhappy  affair,  gave  the  friends  of  peace  san- 
guine expectations  of  union  and  harmony ;  or,  at 
least,  of  forbearance  and  christian  charity.  But  the 
contest  begun,  had  too  much  of  principle  involved 
in  it,  to  say  nothing  of  other  motives  by  which  the 
leaders  may  have  been  actuated,  to  allow  the  Old 
School  to  settle  down  in  quiet  and  make  no  further 
resistance  to  New  School  men  and  their  theology. 
The  progress  of  reputed  error  must  be  arrested,  or 
consequences  would  follow  greatly  to  be  deprecated 
by  a  party  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  No  one  was 
yet  prepared  to  come  forward  directly,  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  in  the  constitution,  as  the  accuser 
of  his  brethren.  The  object  aimed  at  was  to  ob- 
tain a  condemnation  of  the  theological  opinions  of 
such  men  as  Mr.  Barnes,  through  their  published 
writings,  public  sentiment  not  now  being  prepared 
to  sustain  a  process  of  discipline  against  the  indi- 
viduals themselves. 

In  February  or  March,  1832,  the  Rev.  George 
Dufiield,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  Gar- 
lisle,  published  a  book,  entitled  ''  Spiritual  Life  or 
Regeneration,  illustrated  in  a  series  of  disquisitions, 
relative  to  its  Author,  subject,  nature,  means,  &c.'* 
Extensive  and  powerful  revivals  of  religion  had  pre- 
viously occurred  in  a  large  number  of  the  churches 
within  the  bounds  of  the  presbytery  of  Carlisle,  in- 


BETWEEN  THE    OLD    AND    NEW    SCHOOL.    87 
Examined  by  committee  of  presbytery. 

eluding  that  under  the  care  of  Mr.  Duffield.  The 
work  on  Regeneration  was  occasioned,  in  part,  by 
this  circumstance,  and  contained  an  exhibition  of 
the  doctrines,  which,  in  New  England  and  else- 
where, have  been  made,  through  the  operations  of 
the  Spirit,  a  means  of  the  conversion  of  sinners. 

Immediately  after  the  appearance  of  the  book,  ex- 
tracts and  comments  were  published  simultaneously 
in  a  political  paper  in  Carlisle,  and  in  ''  The  Presby- 
terian. "  The  sentiments  advanced  were  represented 
as  Socinian,  Pelagian,  Arminian,  Pantheistical,  Athe- 
istical, &c.  In  April,  1832,  ''  Duffield  on  Regen- 
eration," was  introduced  to  the  consideration  of  the 
presbytery  of  Carlisle,  and  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  examine  the  work,  and  to  make  report 
on  its  doctrines.  The  committee  reported  various 
errors,  such  in  substance  as  the  following :  that 
Adam  stood  in  the  relation  of  a  parent  only  to  his 
posterity,  and  not  as  their  federal  head  and  repre- 
sentative ;  that  there  is  no  imputation  of  legal  pun- 
ishment on  account  of  Adam's  first  sin,  and  that 
the  death  of  infants  is  the  mere  natural  result  or 
consequence  of  his  sin,  in  virtue  of  their  connection 
with  him  as  a  parent  only ;  that  there  is  no  princi- 
ple of  holiness  or  sin  inherent  in  the  soul,  which  is 
the  proper  cause  of  moral  action,  and  that  all  holi- 
ness or  sinfulness  is  actually  acquired  by  an  exer- 
cise of  the  will ;  that  infants  have  no  moral  char- 


88  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 

Errors  reported. 

acter ;  that  the  inability  of  sinners  to  believe,  re- 
pent, &c.,  is  wholly  that  of  the  will,  and  does  not 
consist  in  a  depravity  of  nature  propagated  from 
Adam  to  his  posterity,  which  renders  man  miable 
to  perform  holy  exercises,  "  till  some  new  princi- 
ple or  power  of  action  is  commmiicated  to  the  mind 
itself,  in  regeneration,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  curing 
the  depravity  of  his  faculties ;"  that  regeneration 
consists  in  a  voluntary  act  of  faith  under  the  influ- 
ence of  moral  suasion  only,  and  that  the  soul  is  ac- 
tive^ not  passive^  in  regeneration;  that  election  is 
nothing  else  than  the  actual  conversion  of  men  to 
God ;  and  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ, 
possessed  no  personal  characteristic  holiness,  irre- 
spective of,  or  previous  to,  his  moral  acts  and  exer- 
cises. Other  errors  were  imputed  to  the  book,  and 
to  some  of  those  above  specified,  worse  features 
were  given  than  is  here  represented ;  but  the  reader 
will  correctly  perceive  from  this  specimen,  what 
was  the  character  of  the  doctrines  condemned.* 
The  presbytery  received  and  acted  upon  the  report 
of  the  committee  at  an  adjourned  meeting  in  June. 
It  "  declared  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  book, 
as  presented  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  to  be 


*  Extracts  from  the  report  of  the  committee  as  published  in  a 
pamphlet,  entitled  "  A  cursory  examination  of  the  Carlisle  Pres- 
bytery's Review  of  Duffield  on  Regeneration." 


BETWEEN  THE    OLD    AND    NEW    SCHOOL.    89 


Book  condemned. 


erroneous,  and  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  the  bible 
and  the  standards  of  the  church,"  and  solemnly 
wai'ned  its  ministers,  elders,  and  people,  ''  to  guard 
against  such  distracting  and  dangerous  errors."  Mr. 
Duffield  opposed  the  process  against  the  book,  and 
carried  up  a  complaint  to  the  synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  Oct.  1832.  The  synod  entertained  the 
complaint,  and  acted  on  it  so  far  as  to  read  the  doc- 
uments and  hear  the  parties ;  and  then,  on  motion 
of  Dr.  Junkin,  dismissed  the  case  with  an  injunc- 
tion to  the  presbytery  of  Carlisle,  to  commence  pro- 
cess against  Mr.  Duffield.  The  presbytery  imme- 
diately met,  and  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare 
charges,  after  which  it  adjourned  to  November. 
The  committee  being  unwilling  to  take  the  respon- 
sibility of  personal  accusers,  instituted  process  on 
the  ground  of  common  fame  and  the  injunction  of 
the  synod.  The  charges  consisted  of  ten  specifica- 
tions, embracing  the  errors  set  forth  in  the  report  of 
the  former  committee  of  the  presbytery,  but  ex- 
pressed in  amended  language  and  more  guarded 
terms.  At  length,  in  April,  1833,  the  case  came  on 
for  trial,  and  the  accused  put  himself  on  his  de- 
fense. Mr.  Duffield  challenged  several  members 
of  the  presbytery,  but  it  decided  that  all  its  mem- 
bers present  were  competent  to  sit  as  judges. 
Against  this  decision,  Mr.  Duffield  entered  an  ap- 
peal to  the  General  Assembly.  After  preliminary 
8* 


90  DIFFERENCE     IN     THEOLOGY 


Mr.  Duffield  accused  and  tried. 


matters  were  adjusted,  the  trial  went  on  j  and,  as 
the  result,  the  presbytery  decided  that  the  accused 
was  guilty  of  eight  out  of  the  ten  specifications. 
The  highest  vote  in  the  affirmative  was  twelve, 
the  presbytery  consisting,  as  first  constituted  for 
the  trial,  of  thirty-seven  members.  The  final  de- 
cision in  the  case  was,  ''  That  presbytery  at  present 
do  not  censure  him  any  further  than  warn  him  to 
guard  against  such  speculations  as  may  impugn  the 
doctrines  of  our  church ;  and  that  he  study  to  main- 
tain the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." 
Complaints  and  appeals  were  entered  on  both  sides 
to  the  General  Assembly  of  1833,  but  they  were 
never  prosecuted.  Mr.  Duffield  was  determined, 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  to  let  the  subject  rest,  unless 
compelled  to  do  otherwise,  where  the  presbytery 
had  left  it. 

The  synod  of  Philadelphia,  on  account  of  the 
dangerous  illness  of  Mr.  Duffield  at  the  time  of  its 
next  meeting  in  October,  1833,  omitted  to  review 
the  doings  of  the  presbytery  in  his  case  ;  but  the 
subject  was  taken  up  the  following  year,  and  cen- 
sure passed  upon  the  presbytery  for  the  lenity  of  its 
final  decision. 

It  hardly  need  be  said,  that  the  charges  against 
Mr.  Duffield's  book,  in  various  respects  misrepre- 
sent his  reed  sentiments.  This  was  abundantly 
shewn  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  against  him, 


BETWEEN   THE    OLD    AND   NEW   SCHOOL.    91 
Mr.  Duffield  accused  and  tried. 

and  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  book 
itself.  His  views  are  not  different,  in  general,  from 
those  of  his  brethren  of  the  New  School,  whose 
system  of  doctrines  has  already  been  described; 
nor  from  those  of  most  of  his  Congregational  breth- 
ren in  New  England. 


92 


CHAPTER   X. 


ACCOUNT     OF     VARIOUS     MEMORIALS. 


Matters  of  complaint. 


To  the  General  Assembly  of  1834,  was  presented 
"  A  memorial  on  the  present  state  of  the  Presby- 
terian church."  The  circular  which  accompanied 
this  memorial  was  signed  by  nineteen  ministers 
and  twenty-three  elders,  mostly  belonging  to  the 
synod  of  Cincinnati.  The  memorial  had  been 
adopted  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  eight  or  ten  pres- 
byteries and  as  many  sessions ;  and  was  signed  by 
about  twenty  ministers  and  one  hundred  elders. 
Its  complaints  related  to  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801 ; 
the  adoption  of  the  standards  with  the  right  of  ex- 
planation or  for  substance  of  doctrine ;  the  ordain- 
ing of  men  by  presbyteries  to  preach  and  adminis- 
ter the  ordinances  in  other  parts  of  the  church  ;  the 
countenance  and  support  given  by  the  General  As- 
sembly to  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society 
and  other  voluntary  associations ;  and  the  proceed^ 
ings  of  the  Assembly  of  1831,  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  and  of  that  of  1832,  in  dividing  the  pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia.  It  also  remonstrated  and 
testified  against  the  following  errors,  declared  to  be 


ACCOUNT     OF     VARIOUS     MEMORIALS.    93 
Errors  testified  against. 

held  and  taught  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presby- 
terian church. 

''  1.  That  Adam  was  not  the  covenant  head  or 
federal  representative  of  his  posterity,  and  sustained 
no  other  relation  to  them  than  that  which  subsists, 
between  every  parent  and  his  offspring. 

^'  2.  That  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  first 
sin  of  Adam  more  than  with  the  sin  of  any  other 
parent ;  and  that  it  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity. 

"  3.  That  infants  have  no  moral  character ;  that 
they  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy. 

"  4.  That  all  sin  consists  exclusively  in  volun- 
tary acts  or  exercises,  and  consequently  that  there 
is  no  innate,  inherent,  or  derived  corruption  in  the 
souls  of  fallen  men. 

*•  5.  That  man  in  his  fallen  state  is  possessed  of 
entire  ability  to  do  whatever  God  requires  him  to 
do,  independently  of  any  new  power  or  ability  im- 
parted to  him  by  the  gracious  operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

"  6.  That  regeneration  is  essentially  a  volmitary 
change  which  the  soul  is  active  in  producing,  and 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  only  mediately  in  the  way 
of  moral  suasion  by  the  presentation  of  motives. 

"  7.  That  Christ  did  not  become  the  legal  substi- 
tute of  sirmers ;  did  not  pay  the  debt  of  his  people 
or  endure  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  their  behalf. 


94     ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS. 


Resolutions  of  the  Assembly  of  1834. 


''  8.  That  the  Atonement  is  merely  an  exhibition 
of  the  wrath  of  God  against  sin ;  an  expedient  for 
enabUng  God  to  forgive  sin  consistently  with  the 
welfare  of  the  universe,  of  itself  not  securing  the 
salvation  of  any  one,  and  not  satisfying  divine  jus- 
tice :  and 

"  9.  That  the  Atonement  is  general,  made  for  all 
men  alike,  as  much  for  the  non-elect  as  the  elect." 

In  proof  of  the  existence  of  these  sentiments,  re- 
ference was  made  to  Barnes's  sermon  on  the  Way 
of  Salvation,  to  DufReld  on  Regeneration,  and  to 
sermons  of  Drs.  Beecher  and  Beman. 

The  Memorial  was  referred  to  a  committee  who 
reported  a  series  of  resolutions,  in  general,  opposed 
to  the  views  of  the  memorialists.  The  resolutions, 
amongst  other  things  declared,  that  this  Assembly 
cannot  sanction  the  censure  contained  in  the  Memo- 
rial against  proceedings  and  measures  of  former  Gen- 
eral Assemblies :  That  -it  bears  solemn  testimony 
against  publishing  to  the  world,  ministers  in  good 
and  regular  standing,  as  heretical  and  dangerous, 
without  being  constitutionally  tried  and  condemned : 
and  "  That  it  is  deemed  inexpedient  and  undesirable 
to  abrogate  or  interfere  with  the  Plan  of  Union  be- 
tween Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  in  the 
new  settlements,  adopted  in  1801."  On  the  sub- 
ject of  doctrinal  errors,  the  following  resolution  was 
proposed ;  "  that  in  the  opinion  of  this  Assembly,  to 


ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS.     95 
Act  and  Testimony. 


take  up  and  try  and  condemn  any  printed  publica- 
tion as  heretical  and  dangerous,  is  equivalent  to  con- 
demning the  author  as  heretical ;  that  to  condemn 
heresy  in  the  abstract,  cannot  be  understood  as  the 
purpose  of  such  a  trial ;  that  the  results  of  such  trial, 
are  to  bear  upon  and  seriously  to  affect  the  standing 
of  the  author  ;  and  that  the  fair  and  imquestionable 
mode  of  procedure  is  to  institute  process  against  the 
author,  and  give  him  a  fair  and  constitutional  trial."' 
The  report  of  the  committee  was  adopted  by  a 
considerable  majority  of  the  Assembly,  The  mi- 
nority were  greatly  dissatisfied  with  the  action  up- 
on the  Memorial,  as  well  as  with  other  proceedings 
of  the  Assembly.  A  meeting  was  called  in  Phila- 
delphia, to  which  all  those  ministers  and  elders  were 
invited,  who  sympathized  with  the  minority  in  their 
opinions  and  feelings.  The  result  of  this  meeting 
was  the  publication  of  the  "Act  and  Testimony," 
addressed  to  the  ministers,  elders  and  private  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbyterian  church ;  a  document  which 
in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  times,  has  obtain- 
ed great  notoriety.  It  represents  the  church  as 
having  arrived  at  a  solemn  crisis,  in  which  the 
minority  axe  constrained  to  appeal  to  its  members 
*4n  relation  to  the  alarming  errors  which  have 
hitherto  been  connived  at,  and  now  at  length  have 
been  countenanced  and  sustained  by  the  acts  of 
the  supreme  judicatory  of  the  church."     It  testifies 


96     ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS. 
Measures  recommended. 

against  various  alledged  errors  in  doctrine,  similar  to 
those  condemned  in  the  case  of  Duffield,  and  com- 
plained of  in  the  Memorial  to  the  Assembly ;  against 
the  compromising  spirit,  and  laxity  in  administering 
discipline,  manifested  in  the  judicatories  of  the 
church ;  and  against  various  departures  from  Pres- 
byterial  order  and  church  government,  extensively 
practiced,  and  sanctioned  by  the  highest  authority. 
In  conclusion,  the  Act  and  Testimony  recommends 
to  the  churches,  "  to  refuse  to  give  countenance  to 
ministers,  elders,  agents,  editors,  teachers,  or  to 
those  who  are  in  any  other  capacity  engaged  in 
rehgious  instruction  or  effort,"  who  hold  "the  her- 
esies" which  it  condemns ;  to  subject  such  persons, 
especially  if  they  are  ministers,  to  the  just  exercise 
of  discipline  by  the  proper  tribunal ;  to  use  all  proper 
means  to  restore  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  new  principles  into  the 
system.  To  carry  these  objects  into  effect,  it  re- 
commends that  the  judicatories  of  the  church  and 
its  officers,  who  approve  of  the  Act  and  Testimony, 
give  a  public  expression  of  their  adherence  to  it ; 
and  that  a  convention  of  ministers  and  elders,  be 
held  in  Pittsburgh,  previous  to  the  next  session  of 
the  General  Assembly,  to  be  composed  of  two  dele- 
gates, a  minister  and  elder,  from  each  presbytery  or 
from  the  minority  of  any  presbytery  who  may  con- 
cur in  its  sentiments.     This  document  produced 


ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS.     97 

Biblical  Repertory  on  the  subject. 

much  sensation  throughout  the  Presbyterian  churchj 
and  except  by  the  party  from  whom  it  originated, 
was  regarded  with  strong  disapprobation. 

An  article  appeared  in  the  Bibhcal  Repertory, 
said  to  be  from  the  pen  of  one  of  the  professors 
at  Princeton,  in  which  decided  ground  was  taken 
against  it.  '"We  have  now  performed,"  says  the 
writer  in  conclusion,  "  a  painful,  though  as  we  think 
an  imperative  duty.  We  have  come  out  open- 
ly against  brethren  in  whose  doctrinal  views  we 
coincide,  whose  persons  we  love,  whose  character 
and  motives  we  respect,  with  whom  we  have  ever 
been  associated  and  fondly  hope  ever  to  be  united." 

The  convention  met  at  Pittsburgh  as  was  re- 
commended. It  was  composed  of  forty-seven  min- 
isters and  thirty-eight  elders.  Its  President  was 
Rev.  Ashbel  Green,  D.  D.,  and  its  Vice  President, 
Rev.  John  Witherspoon. 

As  the  result  of  their  deliberations,  a  memorial 
was  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1835, 
setting  forth  their  grievances  and  earnestly  petition- 
ing for  redress.  The  errors  and  irregularities  com- 
plained of  by  the  memorialists,  were,  with  some  ad- 
ditions, substantially  the  same  with  tliose  which 
were  presented  to  the  preceding  Assembly,  and 
which  were  before  noticed. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1835,  contained  a  ma- 
jority of  Old  School  members.  The  Memorial  of 
9 


98     ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS. 
Assembly  of  1835. — Resolution  on  doctrinal  errors. 

the  convention  was  received  and  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  which  Dr.  Miller  was  chairman.  The 
report  of  the  committee  embraced  resolutions  some- 
what in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  memori- 
alists, but  did  not,  however,  recommend  all  the 
measures  by  them  proposed.  The  committee  de- 
clared it  to  be  the  first  duty  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  to  sustain  her  own  Boards,  yet  that  it  is  not 
expedient  to  attempt  to  prohibit  within  her  bounds, 
the  operations  of  the  Home  Missionary  Society,  or 
of  the  Presbyterian  Education  Society,  or  any  other 
voluntary  association,  not  subject  to  her  control. 
They  also  recommended  the  repeal  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801,  and  on  the  subject  of  doctrinal  errors, 
proposed  the  following  resolution ;  "  That  while 
this  General  Assembly  has  no  means  of  ascertain- 
ing to  what  extent  the  doctrinal  errors  alleged  in 
the  memorial  to  exist  in  our  church,  do  really  pre- 
vail, it  cannot  hesitate  to  express  the  painful  convic- 
tion that  the  allegation  is  by  no  means  unfounded, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  condemn  all  such  opinions, 
as  not  distinguishable  from  Pelagian  and  Arminian 
errors,  and  to  declare  their  judgment  that  the  hold- 
ing of  the  opinions  referred  to  is  wholly  incom- 
patible with  an  honest  adoption  of  our  confession 
of  faith.  Against  the  doctrinal  opinions  therefore 
above  alluded  to,  the  Assembly  would  solemnly  lift 
a  warning  voice,  and  enjoin  upon  all  our  presbyte- 


ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS.     99 
Resolutions  passed. 


ries  and  synods  to  exercise  the  utmost  vigilance 
against  the  introduction  of  such  pestiferous  errors," 

The  proposed  resohitions,  having  received  sev- 
eral important  modifications  and  amendments,  were 
adopted ;  and  the  decisions  of  the  former  Assembly 
in  regard  to  some  of  the  leading  points  in  contro- 
versy, were  reversed.  The  right  of  presbyteries  to 
examine  those  who  apply  to  them  for  admission, 
with  credentials  from  other  presbyteries,  and  of  ju- 
dicatories to  censure  printed  books,  without  process 
instituted  against  their  authors,  was  acknowledged ; 
the  principle  of  elective  affinity  in  the  formation  of 
presbyteries  and  synods  was  condemned ;  the  repeal 
of  the  Plan  of  Union,  was  proposed  for  the  consent 
of  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and 
above  all,  the  doctrinal  errors  alleged  to  be  preva- 
lent in  the  church,  were  pronounced  to  be  of  a  dan- 
gerous and  pestiferous  character. 

The  Old  School  party  believing  themselves  to 
have  gained  a  signal  triumph  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly, confidently  expected  to  make  a  successful  use 
of  it  in  suppressing  the  sentiments  which  the  high- 
est judicatory  of  the  church  had  virtually  branded 
with  the  nauTie  of  heresy.  The  leaders  in  the  ranks 
of  opposition  to  New  School  theology,  hoped  now 
to  be  able  to  carry  through  severe  measures  of  dis- 
cipline against  the  prominent  advocates  of  these 
views ;  and  by  this  means  to  check  the  alarming 


100     ACCOUNT    OF    VARIOUS    MEMORIALS. 
Old  School  party  encouraged. 

progress  of  the  doctrines  and  prevent  their  ascen- 
dency. 

For  several  months,  the  Rev.  Lyman  Beecher, 
D.  D.,  President  of  Lane  Seminary,  had  stood  ac- 
cused of  heresy,  &c.  in  charges  tabled  against  him 
by  the  Rev.  Joshua  L.  Wilson,  D.  D.,  and  was 
awaiting  his  trial  before  the  presbytery  of  Cincin- 
nati. Mr.  Barnes  had  also  been  arraigned  before 
the  second  presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  by  Rev. 
George  Junkin,  D.  D.,  President  of  La  Fayette 
College,  late  the  sole  member  of  one  of  the  presby- 
teries of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod ;  now  one 
of  the  foremost  defenders  of  high  church  orthodoxy 
in  the  Presbyterian  church.  He  too  was  soon  to 
be  tried,  and  the  result  of  these  two  cases  seemed 
about  to  settle  the  question  whether  New  England 
sentiments,  or  New  School  theology,  should  any 
longer  enjoy  toleration. 

The  trial  of  Dr.  Beecher  commenced  the  9th  of 
June,  1835,  and  that  of  Mr.  Barnes  on  the  30th  day 
of  the  same  month.  That  the  reader  may  under- 
stand the  precise  points  at  issue  in  these  cases,  the 
several  charges  will  be  given  in  the  next  chapter, 
and  a  general  view  of  the  proceedings  presented. 
The  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  will  be  first  noticed. 


101 


CHAPTER    XI. 

TRIALS      OF      REV.     A.    BARNES,      AND      REV. 
L.    BEECHER,    D  .   D .,     FOR    HERESY. 

Charges  against  Mr.  Barnes. 

In  the  prosecution  against  Mr.  Barnes,  he  was 
charged  with  maintaining ,  "  That  all  sin  consists 
in  volimtary  action  ;  that  Adam  was  ignorant  of 
his  moral  relations  to  such  a  degree,  that  he  did  not 
know  the  consequences  of  his  sin  v/ould  reach  any- 
further  than  to  natural  death;  that  unregenerate 
men  are  able  to  keep  the  commandments  and  con- 
vert themselves  to  God ;  and  that  faith  is  an  act  of 
the  mind  and  not  a  principle,  and  is  itself  imputed 
for  righteousness."  He  was  also  charged  with  de- 
nying,  "that  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Adsim, 
constituting  him  a  federal  or  covenant  head  and 
representative  to  all  his  natural  descendants ;  that 
the  first  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  his  posterity  ; 
that  mankind  are  guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to  pimishment, 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  that  Christ  suffered 
the  proper  penalty  of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious  sub- 
stitute of  his  people,  and  thus  took  away  legally 
their  sins  and  purchased  pardon  ;  and  that  the  right- 
eousness, i,  e.  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  to  th^ 
9* 


102      TRIALS    OF    REV.    A.    BARNES,    AND 
Acquittal  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

law,  is  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justification, 
so  that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law  and 
therefore  justified."  The  Notes  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  were  made  the  ground  of  these  charges. 
To  these  charges  Mr.  Barnes  replied,  that  some  of 
the  doctrines  in  question  he  held  and  some  he  did 
not ;  but  that  he  held  and  taught  nothing  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  denied  none  of  the  truths 
taught  in  the  scriptures.  His  defense  shews,  that 
he  holds  the  system  of  doctrines  which  were  before 
ascribed  to  the  New  School.  He  regards  man  as 
an  agent,  capable  of  obeying  the  law  of  God,  and 
sin  as  a  transgression  of  that  law.  He  considers 
the  inability  of  man  not  as  physical  but  as  moral, 
consisting  in  a  total  aversion  of  the  will  to  that 
which  is  good ;  an  aversion  so  strong  as  never  to 
be  overcome  but  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  maintains,  that  in  consequence  of  the 
sin  of  Adam,  the  whole  race  become  sinners,  and 
that  on  account  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  alone, 
they  who  believe  are  justified  through  faith.  But 
it  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  a  more  particular  ex- 
planation of  his  views.  However  they  may  be 
misrepresented  by  his  accusers,  they  will  not  be 
misunderstood  by  New  England  divines. 

The  presbytery,  after  a  full  hearing  of  the  case, 
judged  the  charges  not  sustained,  and  acquitted 
Mr.  Barnes  of  having  taught  dangerous  errors  or 


103 

Trial  before  the  synod  of  Philadelphia. 

heresies,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  the  stand- 
ards of  the  church.  The  vote  was  fifteen  to  three, 
the  latter  number  inchiding  one  minister  and  two 
elders. 

From  the  judgment  of  the  presbytery  Dr.  Jun- 
kin  appealed  to  the  synod  of  Philadelphia,  which 
met  in  Oct.  1835.  By  an  act  of  the  preceding  As- 
sembly, the  synod  of  Delaware,  to  which  the  pres- 
bytery belonged,  had  been  dissolved,  and  the  pres- 
bytery annexed  to  the  synod  of  Philadelphia.  Re- 
garding this  act  as  unconstitutional,  the  presbytery 
refused  to  yield  up  its  records  to  the  synod ;  and 
though  Mr.  Barnes  professed  himself  ready  for  trial 
on  his  part,  he  coi^ld  not  consent  to  put  himself  on 
his  defense  while  the  proper  documents  in  the  case 
were  wanting.  The  synod,  therefore,  proceeded 
with  his  case  without  his  appearance  as  a  party. 
It  reversed  the  decision  of  the  presbytery,  adjudged 
Mr.  Barnes  to  be  guilty  of  heresy,  and  suspended 
him  from  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to 
the  gospel  ministry.  On  the  resolution  for  suspen- 
sion, one  hundred  and  sixteen  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive, thirty-one  in  the  negative,  and  eight  were  not 
included.  Mr.  Barnes  gave  notice  of  an  appeal,  and 
the  case  went  up  for  final  adjudication  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1836.  In  the  mean  time,  he  sub- 
mitted to  the  decision  of  the  synod,  and  suspended 
his  appropriate  labors  as  a  christian  minister.     The 


104      TRIALS    OF    REV.    A.    BARNES,    AND 
Trial  of  Dr.  Beecher. 

Assembly,  after  a  full  hearing  of  the  parties,  sus- 
tained the  appeal  and  reversed  the  decision  of  the 
synod  suspending  Mr.  Barnes,  by  a  vote  of  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-five  in  the  affirmative  and  seventy- 
eight  in  the  negative,  eleven  members  declining  to 
vote. 

Some  account  will  now  be  given  of  the  proceed- 
ings against  Dr.  Beecher.  At  the  time  of  his  call 
to  the  presidency  of  Lane  Seminary,  and  to  the 
professorship  of  theology  in  that  institution,  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1831,  he  was  pastor  of  the  Bowdoin  street 
church,  in  Boston.  To  the  church  and  congrega- 
tion under  his  care,  a  letter  was  addressed  by  a  com- 
mittee of  the  board  of  trustees,  urging  his  pecu- 
liar qualifications  for  the  station  to  which  he  was 
called,  as  a  reason  for  his  dismission  from  his  charge 
and  removal  to  Cincinnati.  Of  this  committee. 
Dr.  Joshua  L.  Wilson  was  chairman,  and  the  letter 
bore  his  signature. 

In  September,  1832,  Dr.  Beecher  was  dismissed 
from  his  pastoral  charge,  and  soon  proceeded  to  the 
west,  to  enter  his  new  field  of  labor.  He  left  New 
England,  in  possession  of  the  affection,  confidence, 
and  good  wishes  of  his  brethren,  which  he  had  so 
long  enjoyed.  On  arriving  at  Cincinnati,  he  found 
that  suspicions  had  been  excited,  and  that  he  was 
likely  to  encounter  opposition  from  a  quarter  in 
\vhich  it  might  least  have  been  expected.     Instead 


REV.    L.    BEECHER,    D.    D.  105 

Opposition  to  his  being  received  by  the  presbytery. 

of  meeting  that  cordial  reception  from  Dr.  Wilson 
which  he  had  anticipated,  he  found  him  prepared 
to  withhold  his  confidence  and  cooperation.  Dr. 
Wilson,  it  seems,  had  miited  with  the  trustees  of 
Lane  Seminary  in  giving  him  the  call,  with  the 
belief  that  he  would  not  accept  the  appointment ; 
but  being  disappointed  in  the  result,  he  resigned 
his  seat  in  the  board,  and,  on  Dr.  Beecher's  arrival, 
was  prepared  to  oppose  his  being  received  by  the 
presbytery  of  Cincinnati.  He,  however,  was  re- 
ceived as  a  member ;  but  the  presbytery  was  soon 
called  upon  to  take  up  charges  against  him,  on  the 
ground  of  general  rimior  respecting  the  unsound- 
ness of  his  theology.  But  the  existence  of  com- 
mon fame  was  denied,  and  the  subject  was  not  ta- 
ken up.  The  presbytery  was  next  called  upon  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  examine  his  printed  sermons, 
and  report  whether  they  contained  doctrines  at  va- 
riance with  the  standards  of  the  church.  The  pres- 
bytery refused  to  adopt  this  measure,  and  complaint 
was  made  to  the  synod  of  Cincinnati ;  but  the  synod 
dismissed  it,  on  the  ground  that  the  presbytery  was 
not  obliged  to  act  without  a  responsible  prosecutor. 
Dr.  Wilson  then  appealed  to  the  General  Assembly 
of  1834,  but  the  judicial  committee  cast  out  the  ap- 
peal, because  he  was  not  one  of  the  original  parties. 
Failing  to  procure  in  this  way  the  condemna- 
tion of  Dr.  Beecher's  sentiments,  Dr.  Wilson,  in  No- 


106       TRIALS    OF    REV.    A.    BARNES,    AND 
Dr.  Wilson  accuses  Dr.  Beecher. 

vember,  1834,  commenced  a  prosecution  against  Dr. 
Beecher,  on  charges  of  heresy,  slander,  and  hypo- 
crisy ;  and  in  June,  1835,  as  before  mentioned,  the 
case  was  finally  brought  to  trial.  The  charge  of 
slander  related  to  his  misrepresenting  the  doctrines 
of  the  whole  church  on  the  subject  of  ability,  as 
constituting  the  ground  of  obligation  and  guilt,  and 
to  his  casting  odium  on  the  reformers  and  on  those 
who  adhere  strictly  to  the  standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian church.  That  of  hypocrisy  related  to  his 
professing  to  adopt  the  standards  of  the  church, 
while  he  disbelieves  and  impugns  important  points 
of  doctrine.  The  points  of  doctrine  on  which  the 
accusation  of  heresy  was  based,  correspond  in  gen- 
eral with  those  before  mentioned  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Barnes.  The  charges  were,  that  he  propagates 
doctrines  contraiy  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
standards  of  the  church,  on  the  subject  of  the  de- 
praved nature  of  man,  and  on  the  subjects  of  total 
depravity  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  re- 
generation ;  and  that  he  teaches  the  doctrine  of  per- 
fection. The  following  are  among  the  specifica- 
tions. He  teaches  that  the  depravity  of  man  is 
voluntary,  and  that  the  first  sin  of  every  man  is 
free,  and  might  have  been  and  ought  to  have  been 
avoided ;  that  man  is  rendered  capable  by  his  Ma- 
ker of  obedience  ;  that  ability  to  obey  is  indispen- 
sable to  moral  obligation,  and  that  to  be  able  and 


REV.    L.    BEECHERj    D.D.  107 

Specification  of  doctrinal  errors. — Grounds  of  defense. 

unwilling  to  obey  God,  is  the  only  possible  way  in 
which  a  free  agent  can  become  deserving  of  con- 
demnation and  punishment ;  that  all  the  Holy  Spirit 
accomplishes  in  regeneration,  is  to  make  the  sinner 
willing  to  submit  to  God ;  and  finally,  that  perfec- 
tionists derive  several  cogent  arguments  from  these 
doctrines. 

Dr.  Beecher  in  his  defense  maintained,  that  it  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  confession  of  faith  and  of  the 
bible,  and  has  been  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
church  in  all  ages,  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  in  pos- 
session of  such  natural  powers  as  are  adequate  to  a 
compliance  with  every  requirement  of  God,  and 
that  he  lies  under  that  impotency  of  will  which 
consists  in  aversion  from  God,  and  is  entirely  de- 
pendent on  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  be- 
gin, continue,  and  consummate  the  work  of  con- 
version ;  and  that  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
all  his  posterity,  from  the  commencement  of  their 
moral  existence,  are  destitute  of  holiness  and  prone 
to  evil,  so  that  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  and  the 
special  renovating  influence  of  the  spirit,  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  salvation  of  any  human  being.  In 
holding  these  views,  therefore,  he  is  not  guilty  of 
believing  or  teaching  any  thing  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God  or  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

After  a  full  hearing  of  the  case,  the  presbytery 
voted  by  a  majority  of  nearly  two  thirds,  that  the 


108       TRIALS    OF    REV.    A.    BARNES,    AND 

Result  of  these  trials. 

charges  were  not  sustained.  From  this  decision, 
Dr.  Wilson  appealed  to  the  synod  of  Cincinnati. 
The  synod  on  hearing  of  the  case,  acquitted  Dr. 
Beecher  of  entertaining  views  to  justify  any  suspi- 
cion of  unsoundness  in  the  faith,  and  expressed  the 
belief,  that  nothing  insuperable  existed  to  prevent 
his  usefulness,  or  impair  confidence  in  him  as  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
An  appeal  from  this  decision  was  taken  by  the  pros- 
ecutor to  the  General  Assembly  of  1836,  but  was 
finally  withdrawn  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of 
many  of  the  friends  of  Dr.  Wilson. 

The  result  in  the  two  cases  of  discipline  whose 
history  has  now  been  given,  as  well  as  other  pro- 
ceedings of  an  Assembly  in  which  the  New  School 
had  a  majority,  awakened  new  alarm  in  the  ranks 
of  the  Old  School  party.  The  raeasures  of  disci- 
pline on  which  they  had  relied  to  suppress  the  re- 
puted errors,  had  in  a  great  measure  failed.  The 
doings  and  influence  of  the  Assembly  of  1835.  were 
in  a  degree  counteracted,  something  decisive  must 
be  accomplished  in  this  crisis  of  affairs.  The  mi- 
nority protested  against  the  decision  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  the  caise  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  against  most  of 
its  proceedings  in  reference  to  the  subjects  on  which 
a  diff'erence  of  sentiment  exists.  They  also  took 
other  measures  to  redress  their  grivances.  A  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  correspond  and  deliberate 


REV.    L.    BEECHER,    D.D.  109 

Philadelphia  Convention. — Its  memorial. 

on  the  course  proper  to  be  pursued  by  them,  in  the 
present  crisis  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  After 
holding  "  extensive  correspondence  with  ministerial 
and  lay  brethren  in  all  parts  of  the  church,"  such 
of  course  as  were  favorable  to  the  views  of  the 
party,  the  committee  recommended  ''  that  presbyte- 
ries friendly  to  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  the 
church,  instruct  their  commissioners  to  the  next 
General  Assembly,  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  on  the 
'second  Thursday  of  May,  together  with  such  dele- 
gates as  may  be  appointed  by  minorities  of  presby- 
teries, in  order  fully  and  freely  to  compare  views, 
and  to  unite  upon  such  constitutional  measures  of 
remedying  existing  evils,  as  it  may  be  judged  ex- 
pedient to  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  As- 
sembly." In  accordance  with  this  recommenda- 
tion, the  convention  of  1837  held  its  meeting  the 
week  previous  to  the  session  of  the  Assembly,  and 
prepared  its  ''  testimony  and  memorial"  to  that  body. 
The  subjects  of  complaint  presented  were  three ; 
doctrine,  church  order,  and  discipline.  In  relation 
to  doctrine,  the  same  errors  were  testified  against, 
which  had  been  the  burthen  of  similar  documents 
from  the  same  quarter.  To  these,  however,  some 
new  specifications  were  added,  such  as  the  fol- 
lowing :  '•  That  God  would  have  been  glad  to  pre- 
vent the  existence  of  sin  in  our  world,  but  was 
not  able  without  destroying  the  moral  agency  of 
10 


110       TRIALS    OF    REV.    A.    BARNES,    AND 

Action  of  the  Assembly. 

man ;  or,  that  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  bible 
to  the  contrary,  sin  is  incidental  to  any  wise  moral 
system ;  that  God  has  done  all  that  he  can  do  for 
the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  that  man  himself  must 
do  the  rest ;  that  God  cannot  exert  such  an  influ- 
ence on  the  minds  of  men  as  shall  make  it  certain 
that  they  will  choose  and  act  in  a  particular  man- 
ner, without  impairing  their  moral  agency ;  that 
the  reason  why  some  difier  from  others  in  regard 
to  their  reception  of  the  gospel  is,  that  they  make 
themselves  to  differ."  Most  of  these  statements  are 
intended  to  oppose  a  theory  in  regard  to  the  per- 
mission of  sin,  which  will  be  more  particularly  con- 
sidered in  another  place.  They  show,  however, 
that  the  theory  in  question  was  greatly  misappre- 
hended by  the  memorialists.  The  other  specifica- 
tions, for  the  most  part,  have  been  already  sufl[i- 
ciently  exhibited. 

This  memorial  was  the  basis  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837.  That  body  hav- 
ing a  majority  of  the  Old  School  party,  many  of 
whom  were  members  of  the  convention,  carried 
through  the  measures  of  reform  recommended. 
The  history  of  these  measures  it  is  not  necessary 
here  to  repeat.  They  were  sufficiently  dwelt  upon 
in  the  preceding  chapters  of  this  work.  Nor  is  it 
necessary  again  to  state  the  objects  which  they 
were  designed  to  accomplish.     With  these,  the  im- 


REV.    L.    BEECHER,    D.    D.  Ill 


Action  of  the  Assembly. 


partial  reader  is  sufficiently  acquainted.  They 
were  undertaken  as  a  last  resort,  after  other  expe- 
dients had  failed ;  as  a  desperate  attempt  to  com- 
pass the  various  ends  at  which  the  majority  aimed. 
With  many,  the  suppression  of  heretical  opinions  ; 
at  least,  opinions  deemed  heretical,  because  differing 
in  some  important  respects  from  their  own,  was  the 
leading  design ;  which  no  one  will  doubt,  after  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  proceedings  of  the  va- 
rious judicatories  of  the  church  in  relation  to  these 
opinions.  The  excited  feelings  occasioned  by  the 
collision  of  many  minds  in  controversy  on  the  dis- 
puted doctrines ;  the  party  documents  circulated 
through  the  church  at  different  times  during  a  re- 
cent period ;  the  continual  newspaper  warfare,which 
kept  alive  suspicion  and  fanned  the  flame  of  dis- 
cord ;  the  defeats  and  victories  gained  on  one  side 
and  the  other,  and  especially  the  failure  to  sustain 
the  measures  of  the  Assembly  of  1835,  and  to  fix 
the  stigma  of  heresy  on  the  sentiments  of  the  New 
School,  through  the  condemnation  of  their  reputed 
errors,  and  to  discipline  and  cast  out  of  the  church, 
Dr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Barnes ;  these  things  com- 
bined, exerted  a  mighty  influence  in  consolidating 
the  ranks  of  the  majority,  and  preparing  even  mod- 
erate men,  to  adopt  the  violent  measures  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837.  It  required  years  of 
discipline,  on  the  field  of  theological  and  ecclesias- 


112 

Action  of  the  Assembly. 

tical  combat,  to  marshal  the  forces,  and  bring  them 
to  act  with  unity,  energy,  and  decision,  in  accom- 
pUshing  the  work,  which,  through  misapprehen- 
sion, and  prejudice,  and  passion,  and  the  love  of 
power,  many  perhaps  thought  themselves  called 
upon  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  undertake,  and^ 
without  regard  to  consequences,  to  prosecute  to  its 
final  and  disastrous  consummation. 


113 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY. 

Theological  controversy  in  New  England 

The  reader  of  the  foregoing  pages,  has  not  failed 
to  notice  the  intimate  connection,  which  has  sub- 
sisted between  Presbyterians  and  Congregational- 
ists,  in  the  United  States,  from  the  earUest  period 
of  their  history,  down  to  the  present  time.  Indeed, 
so  closely  have  they  been  associated,  that  their 
names,  in  the  minds  of  many,  are  not  distinguished 
from  each  other.  In  New  England,  it  is  not  un- 
common to  hear  Congregationalists  called  Presby- 
terians, and  the  doctrines  and  sins  of  the  latter,  char- 
ged upon  the  former,  not  by  miputation,  but  on  ac- 
count of  their  supposed  oneness  as  a  denomination 
of  christians. 

In  consequence  of  this  intimate  connection,  the 
doctrinal  discussions  which  have  from  time  to  time 
existed  in  New  England,  have  found  their  way  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent  into  the  Presbyterian  church. 
This  circumstance  has  not  only  rendered  the  Old 
School  men ,  in  that  communion,  suspicious  of  the 
opinions  and  influence  of  their  Congregational  breth- 
ren ;  but  has  made  them  guard  with  watchful  and 
10* 


114  THE  NEW  HAVEN  CONTROVERSY, 

affects  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

jealous  care  against  the  introduction,  from  this  quar- 
ter, of  supposed  heresy.  Hopkinsianism,  at  one  pe- 
riod, excited  their  alarm  to  such  a  degree,  as  to  re- 
ceive the  condemnatory  sentence  of  a  large  and  influ- 
ential church  judicatory ;  and,  for  the  last  eight  or 
ten  years,  there  has  been  an  increasing  suspicion  and 
alarm,  respecting  certain  alledged  peculiarities  of 
sentiment,  advocated  by  some  of  the  Professors  of 
Yale  College,  and  other  divines,  in  various  publica- 
tions, particularly  the  Christian  Spectator. 

The  errors  imputed  to  the  New  Haven  school, 
they  have  regarded  as  in  a  high  degree  heretical, 
and  their  prevalence  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  as 
peculiarly  subversive  of  her  creed  and  destructive  to 
her  purity.  These  errors,  they  believed,  were  in- 
troduced through  the  Plan  of  Union,  the  American 
Education  Society,  and  the  American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society ;  and  were  rapidly  extending,  to  the 
great  prejudice,  if  not  to  the  utter  destruction,  of 
Old  School  orthodoxy.  Hence  a  fourth  cause  of 
the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  and  of  the  oth- 
er measures  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  con- 
nected with  it,  may  be  found  in  the  late  theologi- 
cal controversies,  which  had  their  origin  in  Con- 
necticut, and  have  prevailed  throughout  New  Eng- 
land. 

That  several  of  the  errors  which  the  Assembly 
condemned,  proceeded,  in  the  view  of  the  majority, 


THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY.      115 
Reputed  errors  of  New  Haven  introduced  by  the  Plan  of  Union. 

from  this  source,  is  abundantly  proved  by  their  own 
testimony.  In  the  Memorial  of  the  Convention  of 
1837,  is  found  the  following  declaration.  ''  It  needs 
but  a  glance  at  the  general  character,  the  personal 
affinities,  and  the  geographical  relations  of  those 
who  are  antagonists  in  the  present  contest,  to  be 
satisfied  that  our  present  evils  have  not  originated 
within,  but  have  been  brought  from  without." 
Again,  ''towards  the  churches  of  New  England 
which  stand  fast  in  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,  towards  the  distinguished  and  excellent 
brethren  in  the  Lord  in  those  churches  which  are 
testifying  against  the  errors  which  are  troubling 
them^  as  they  are  troubling  us,  we  entertain  the 
most  fraternal  esteem  and  affection."  These  sen- 
timents are  reiterated  by  the  speakers  of  the  major- 
ity in  the  Assembly,  and  echoed  forth  to  the  world 
in  their  circular  letter  addressed  to  all  the  churches. 
Hence  it  is  evident,  that  the  errors  agciinst  which 
the  convention  testifies  and  which  the  Assembly 
condemns,  are  referred  to  New  England  origin,  and 
are  supposed  to  originate  with  the  New  Haven 
school.  That  this  subject  may  be  properly  under- 
stood, it  is  necessary  to  give  a  general  history  of  the 
late  theological  controversies  of  New  England. 

Soon  after  the  establishment  of  the  present  The- 
ological department  of  Yale  College,  some  dark  sur- 
misings  and  suspicions  were  found  to  be  afloat,  that 


116     THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY. 
Professor  Fitch's  Sermons. — Sin  consists  in  voluntary  action. 

the  Professor  of  Didactic  Theology  in  that  institu- 
tion, was  unsound  in  the  faith.  It  was  whispered, 
in  a  certain  quarter,  that  his  views  were  tending  to 
Unitarianism.  These  rumors  produced  httle  imme- 
diate impression,  but  served  in  some  degree  to 
awaken  jealousy,  and  prepare  the  way  for  the  belief 
of  more  serious  and  specious  charges. 

In  1826,  the  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, preached  and  published  two  sermons  on  the 
nature  of  sin,  in  which  the  doctrine  is  maintained, 
"  that  sin,  in  every  form  and  instance,  is  reducible 
to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent  in  which  he  violates  a 
known  rule  of  duty." 

According  to  this  statement,  as  explained  by  the 
author,  sin  lies  in  some  actual  choice,  some  real  vo- 
lition, some  definite  use  of  his  powers  by  a  moral 
agent,  in  violation  of  his  duty.  A  violation  of  duty 
implies  a  knowledge  of  the  rule  of  duty  violated,  or 
a  capacity  in  the  agent  of  possessing  such  knowl- 
edge. 

By  "the  act  of  a  moral  agent,"  the  author  does 
not  however  mean  merely  those  imperative  or  ex- 
ecutive acts  of  choice  which  immediately  precede 
outward  action.  He  considers  it  as  embracing  per- 
manent  states  of  the  will,  and  regards  these  states  or 
controlling  purposes  of  the  soul  as  constituting  moral 
dispositions ;  or,  in  scriptural  phrase,  "  the  heart  of 
man."     In  applying  the  doctrine  in  its  bearing  on 


THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY.      117 
Our  race  not  disconnected  from  Adam, 

related  truths,  it  is  maintained  ''  that,  in  the  con- 
nection of  Adam  with  his  posterity,  no  sin  of  his  is 
reckoned  theirs  ;"*  and  that  although  man  may  be 
so  affected  at  his  origin  in  his  constitution,  as  to  ren- 
der certain  his  commencing  moral  agency  in  sinful 
action,  yet  that  nothing  can  with  truth  be  called 
his  original  sin,  but  his  first  moral  choice  or  prefer- 
ence being  evil ;  which  original  determination  of 
will  or  moral  purpose,  operates  in  addition  to  origi- 
nal susceptibilities,  as  a  ground  of  his  succeeding 
acts  being  sinful.  While  this  view  of  sin  denies, 
that  we  are,  in  the  proper  sense  of  these  terms,  guil- 
ty of  Adam's  sin,  or  punished  on  that  account ;  it  by 
no  means  disconnects  our  race  from  Adam,  or  rep- 
resents the  consequences  of  the  fall  to  have  been 
confined  to  our  progenitor.  The  author  on  the  con- 
trary perfectly  agrees  with  his  illustrious  predeces- 
sor. Dr.  Dwight,  in  maintaining  that  the  results  of 
Adam's  sin  have  come  down  to  all  his  descendants, 
involving  the  whole  race,  as  a  certain  consequence, 
in  utter  apostacy  from  God,  and  their  total  depravity 
from  the  commencement  of  moral  action. 

The  mode  in  which  the  nature  of  sin  was  pre- 
sented in  these  discourses,  was  at  the  time  some- 
what new  to  a  part  of  the  clergy  of  New  England, 
and  was  at  first  received  by  many,  in  all  its  bearings 

*  Page  22. 


118     THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY 
Interest  awakened  by  the  sermons. — Reviewed. 


and  relations,  with  considerable  hesitation.  None, 
however,  came  forward  publicly  to  controvert  these 
opinions.  A  spirit  of  inquiry  only  was  awakened, 
which  led  to  careful  investigation ;  and  the  result 
was,  more  definite  views  on  the  subjects  of  which 
they  treated,  than  before  prevailed. 

In  March  and  April,  1827,  the  sermons  were  re- 
viewed in  the  Christian  Advocate,  published  in  Phil- 
adelphia, and  edited  by  Dr.  Green.  This  anony- 
mous review  has  been  by  some  ascribed  to  the  edi- 
tor, but  by  others  to  Dr.  Alexander,  of  Princeton. 

The  reviewer  denies  the  main  position  of  the 
discourses,  and  labors  to  set  aside  the  arguments  by 
which  it  was  supported.  He  contends  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  soul,  from  which  a  continual  succession 
of  sinful  acts  proceeds,  is  itself  sinful,  and  that  this 
nature  consists  in  "  a  state,  or  temper,  or  disposition 
of  soul,"  previous  to  any  voluntary  action.  When 
the  law  of  God  requires  love,  he  says,  "  it  virtually 
requires  that  state  or  temper  or  disposition  of  soul 
from  which  love  proceeds,  as  a  stream  from  its  foun- 
tain." 

He  correctly  states,  that  the  author  of  the  dis- 
courses agrees  with  him  in  maintaining,  that  the 
posterity  of  Adam  have  undergone  a  change  in  their 
constitution,  in  consequence  of  his  fall,  which  ren- 
ders their  sinning  certciin ;  and  that  the  single  point 
in  debate  is,  whether  "the  causes  of  the  sinful 


THE     NEW     HAVEN     CONTROVERSY.      119 
Reply  of  Professor  Fitch. 

choices  which  exist  in  the  disposition  or  temper  of 
the  soul  itself,  are  sinful."*  The  reviewer  express- 
es much  concern  for  the  interests  of  truth  and  reli- 
gion in  Yale  College,  laments  that  a  system  is 
promulgated  there,  by  men  called  orthodox,  subver- 
sive of  the  radical  principles  of  Edwards,  and  insin- 
uates that  the  institution  is  in  danger  of  surren- 
dering itself  to  the  power  of  heresy. 

This  review  was  soon  followed  by  a  pamphlet 
from  the  pen  of  Professor  Fitch,  containing  a  full 
and  clear  exposition  of  the  doctrines  advocated  in 
the  discourses,  and  an  able  defense  of  the  positions 
which  he  had  taken.  The  writer  states  his  object 
to  be,  "  simply  an  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  that  in 
man  which  constitutes  the  foundation  of  guilt,  and 
that  all  the  questions  fairly  at  issue,  are  only  three  ; 
viz.  Is  moral  disposition  in  man,  resolvable  into  im- 
manent preference  ?  Does  preference  involve  the 
the  knowledge  of  obligation  between  moral  oppo- 
sites  ?  Is  there  morality  in  any  cause  which  lies 
back  of  moral  preference,  occasioning  the  certainty 
why  the  being  chooses  as  he  does  ?"t  To  the  first 
two  of  these  questions,  he  maintained  an  affirmative, 
to  the  latter  a  negative  answer,  and  in  establishing^ 
his  positions  thus,  triumphantly  vindicates,  it  is  be- 


*  Christian  Advocate,  1827,  pp.  162,  163,  164. 
t  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  Sin,  p.  9. 


120  THE  NEW  HAVEN  CONTROVERSY. 

Moral  disposition  resolvable  into  immanent  preference. 

lieved,  the  doctrines  of  the  discourses  from  the  ob- 
jections of  the  reviewer.  For,  if  moral  disposition 
consists  in  immanent  preference,  then,  that  disposi- 
tion which  is  the  cause  of  all  the  subordinate  or  im- 
perative acts  of  the  will,  is  itself  the  act  of  a  moral 
being ;  and  if  preference  involves  a  knowledge  of 
moral  obligation  between  moral  opposites,  as  surely 
it  must,  then  a  wrong  preference  is  a  violation  of 
known  law  ;  and  if,  whatever  be  the  causes  of  moral 
preference,  occasioning  the  certainty  of  sin,  there  is 
nothing  of  a  moral  nature  lying  back  of  this  pref- 
erence, then  it  follows  that  all  sin  is  reducible  to 
the  acts  of  a  moral  agent  in  which  he  violates  known 
rules  of  duty. 

The  reader  will  here  observe  how  the  controver- 
sy, at  the  very  commencement,  went  out  into  the 
Presbyterian  church,  and  the  suspicion  of  unsound- 
ness in  the  faith  was  attempted  to  be  excited  against 
the  New  Haven  school. 


121 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN     DR.    TAYLOR 
AND     MR.    HARVEY. 

What  occasioned  the  Concio  ad  Clerum. 

In  1828,  the  Dwight  Professor  of  Didactic  The- 
ology in  Yale  College,  preached  his  Concio  before 
the  clergy,  assembled  in  the  chapel  on  the  evening 
of  commencement.  The  circumstances  in  which 
that  discourse  originated  were  the  following.  The 
Rev.  Hubbsird  Winslow,  now  of  Boston,  being  em- 
ployed as  an  agent  to  collect  funds  for  the  Profes- 
sorship of  Sacred  Literature,  presented  the  subject 
of  his  agency  to  the  congregation  in  Fairfield,  Ct. 
Mr.  Winslow  occupied  the  pulpit  on  the  morning  of 
the  Sabbath.  Rev.  Nathaniel  He  wit,  (the  former 
pastor  of  the  church,)  being  present,  was,  by  invita- 
tion, to  preach  in  the  afternoon ;  and  at  the  close  of 
the  services,  a  collection  was  to  be  taken  up,  for  the 
object  that  had  been  presented  in  the  morning. 
Mr.  Hewit  in  his  discourse,  made  heavy  charges 
against  Dr.  Taylor,  and  the  theological  school  un- 
der his  instruction.  He  represented  him  as  hereti- 
cal, respecting  the  nature  and  extent  of  depravity, 
and  respecting  regeneration,  divine  influence,  de- 
ll 


122  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

What  occasioned  the  Concio  ad  Clerum. 

crees  and  election,  and  held  him  up  as  a  Pelagian 
and  Arminian.  He  represented  the  theological  de- 
partment as  injurious  to  the  college,  and  as  a  nui- 
sance which  ought  to  be  removed.  He  commented 
on  the  discourse  of  Mr.  Winslow,  for  the  purpose  of 
illustrating  the  heresy  of  the  school.  These  repre- 
sentations he  used  as  arguments  to  dissuade  the 
people  from  contributing  in  aid  of  the  Professorship 
of  Sacred  Literature;  without,  however,  the  de- 
signed effect. 

Dr.  Taylor  was  informed  of  these  proceedings, 
and  was  requested  by  a  leading  member  of  the  con- 
gregation, to  occupy  the  pulpit  for  his  own  vindica- 
tion and  that  of  his  pupils,  one  of  whom  was  then 
preaching  as  a  candidate  in  Fairfield.  He  prepared 
the  sermon,  afterwards  preached  as  the  Concio  ad 
Clerum,  and  first  preached  it  in  Fairfield ;  expressly 
for  the  purpose  of  declaring  his  sentiments,  by  way 
of  defense,  against  the  unprovoked  attack  which 
had  been  thus  publicly  made  upon  him,  and  the 
department  in  which  he  instructed.  These  facts 
are  mentioned,  to  shew  the  origin  of  the  discourse 
which  has  occasioned  so  much  controversy. 

It  originated  in  the  necessity  of  defense,  and  not 
in  a  disposition  to  provoke  discussion  or  to  attack 
the  theological  opinions  of  others.  It  was  preached 
on  the  evening  of  commencement,  in  the  place  of 
another  previously  prepared  for  the  occasion,  with 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  123 

Depravity,  man's  own  act. 

the  hope  and  expectation  on  the  part  of  the  author, 
that  this  full  and  frank  exhibition  of  his  views, 
would  prevent  all  further  misunderstanding  of  his 
theological  opinions.  The  subject  of  the  sermon  is 
the  native  depravity  of  mankind.  It  is  the  design 
of  the  author  to  show,  firsts  in  what  the  moral  de- 
pravity of  man  consists ;  and,  secondly,  that  this 
depravity  is  by  nature.*  By  the  moral  depravity 
of  mankind,  he  intends  generally  the  entire  sinful- 
ness of  their  moral  character ;  that  state  of  the 
mind  or  heart,  to  which  guilt  and  the  desert  of 
wrath  pertains.  For  the  sake  of  being  expHcit,  he 
states  negatively,  that  depravity  does  not  consist  in 
any  essential  attribute  or  property  of  the  soul, — not 


*  In  1823,  the  same  views  of  depravity  as  here  maintained, 
were  presented  by  Dr.  Taylor,  in  a  review  of  Professor  Norton's 
Views  of  Calvinism ;  and  they  then  met,  as  far  as  is  known,  the 
entire  approbation  of  his  brethren.  His  statement  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  depravity,  in  which  he  supposes  Calvinists 
to  agree,  is  as  follows :  "  that  all  men,  though  complete  moral 
agents,  do,  unless  divine  grace  intervene,  commit  sin  in  their 
first  and  in  every  subsequent  moral  act."  In  accordance  with 
this  statement,  Dr.  Taylor  represented  president  Edwards,  when 
he  speaks  of  propensity,  tendency,  proneness,  liability,  &c.,  as 
carefully  limiting  the  import  of  the  language  to  the  single  idea 
of  that  in  the  nature  of  man  which  will  be  certainly  followed  by 
gin.  He  does  not  assert  that  this  propensity  is  in  itself  sinful 
and  deserving  of  punishment,  but  simply,  that  it  tends  to,  or 
is  followed  by,  those  moral  acts,  by  which  the  subject  becomes 
ill-deserving. 


124  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Results  from  the  nature  of  man. — The  moral  condition  of  infants. 

in  any  thing  created  in  man  by  his  Maker.  Nor 
does  it  consist  in  a  sinful  nature  which  mankind 
have  corrupted  by  being  one  with  Adam,  and  by 
acting  in  his  acts ;  nor  in  any  constitutional,  L  e. 
physical  propensities  of  their  nature ;  nor  in  any 
degree  of  excitement  in  those  propensities  not  re- 
sulting in  choice ;  nor  in  any  disposition  or  ten- 
dency to  sin  which  is  the  cause  of  all  sin ;  but  that  it 
is  Tnari's  own  act,  consisting  in  a  free  choice  of  some 
object  rather  than  God,  as  his  chief  good ; — or  a 
free  preference  of  the  world  and  wordly  good,  to 
the  will  and  glory  of  God.*  This  depravity  is  by 
nature  ;  not  that  the  nature,  i.  e.  constitution  of  the 
soul,  is  itself  sinful,  or  the  physical  or  the  efficient 
cause  of  men's  sinning  ;  but  such  is  their  nature 
that  they  will  sin,  and  only  sin,  in  all  the  ap- 
propriate circumstances  of  their  being.f  He  ex- 
pressly declares,  however,  that  sin  cannot  be  prop- 
erly traced  to  these  circumstances,  but  to  the  nature 
of  man  in  any  and  all  the  circumstances  appropriate 
to  his  existence.  This  should  be  particularly  re- 
marked, as  his  views  on  this  subject  were,  subse- 
quently, as  well  as  before,  very  often  misunder- 
stood and  misrepresented. 

In  the  remarks  which  follow  the  discussion  of 
the  doctrine,  some  inquiry  is  made  respecting  the 
moral  condition  and  salvation  of  infants.      It  is 

*  Concio  ad  Clerum,  pp.  5,  6,  7,  8.  t  Do.  page  14. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  125 

Mr.  Harvey's  review. 

maintained  that  they  sin  as  soon  as  they  are  moral 
agents,  or  as  soon  as  they  can  sin,  whether  any 
one  can  tell  the  precise  moment  of  the  commence- 
ment of  moral  agency  or  not ;  and  that,  belonging 
to  a  race  who  in  all  the  circumstances  of  their  im- 
mortal being,  without  the  grace  of  redemption,  will 
sin,  they  may  receive  the  supernatural  grace  of  God's 
spirit,  and  be  saved  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus.*  In  a  note  appended  to  the  ser- 
mon, the  difficulty  of  reconcihng  the  depravity  of 
mankind  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God,  is  at- 
tributed to  two  very  common,  but  groundless  as- 
sumptions ;  viz.  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is 
preferable  on  the  whole  to  holiness  in  its  stead; 
and  that  God  could,  in  a  moral  system,  have  pre- 
vented all  sin,  or  at  least  the  present  degree  of  sin.f 
The  Concio  ad  Clerum  produced,  at  the  time  of 
its  delivery,  a  lively  interest  amongst  the  clergy 
who  heard  it ;  and  after  its  publication,  some  Con- 
gregational ministers  who  were  accustomed  to  a 
diflferent  phraseology,  or  who  attached  a  meaning 
to  the  language  different  from  that  of  its  author, 
regarded  its  sentiments  with  suspicion,  as  a  depar- 
ture from  orthodoxy.  At  length,  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Harvey,  then  pastor  of  a  church  in  Westchester, 

*  Coacio,  pp.  23,  24.  t  Concio,  p.  29. 

u* 


126  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Mr.  Harvey's  view  of  depravity  and  the  permission  of  sin. 

Ct.,  published  a  review  of  the  sermon,  in  which 
he,  fii^st,  considers  the  nature  of  sin ;  and,  secondly ^ 
the  reason  of  its  permission.  As  to  the  nature  of 
sin,  he  maintains,  in  opposition  to  Dr.  Taylor,  that 
there  is  sin  in  man  which  is  not  his  own  act,  i.  e. 
native,  sinful  depravity,  not  consisting  in  choice 
or  preference,  and  which  is  the  efficient  cause  of  all 
actual  sin.*  This  he  argues,  first,  from  the  fact,  that 
every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  and  the  assump- 
tion that  every  efficient  cause  must  be  of  the  same 
nature  with  the  effects  which  it  produces;  and, 
secondly,  on  the  ground  that  infants,  though  inca- 
pable of  actual  sin,  or  the  transgression  of  known 
law,  are  regarded  in  the  scriptures,  and  treated  by 
God,  as  sinners,  guilty,  and  deserving  of  punish- 
ment. 

In  regard  to  the  permission  of  sin,  the  reviewer 
attributes  to  Dr.  Taylor  the  sentiment,  that  sin  is 
on  the  whole  a  defect  and  an  evil  in  the  moral  sys- 
tem of  Jehovah,  which  he  could  not  prevent.  As- 
suming this  to  be  Dr.  Taylor's  position,  he  goes  on 
to  argue  that,  as  God  prevents  sin  in  some  moral 
agents,  he  can  in  all  without  destroying  their  moral 
agency;  and  that  the  present  system  (including 
sin)  is  the  best  possible,  and  as  such,  was  preferred 
by  God  to  any  conceivable  system  without  sin.f 

*  Review,  pp.  14,  17,  &c.  t  Review,  pp.  32,  35,  37. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.         127 
Review  of  Taylor  and  Harvey. 

As  this  subject  will  be  more  fully  exhibited  in  an- 
other place,  it  would  be  superfluous  here  to  present 
the  points  at  issue  in  the  question,  or  the  arguments 
by  which  they  are  maintained. 

In  the  Christian  Spectator,  for  June,  1829,  the 
Concio  ad  Clerum  and  the  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Harvey 
were  ably  reviewed.*  The  writer  first  takes  up 
Mr.  Harvey's  position,  that  there  is  "  sin  in  man 
which  is  not  his  own  act,"  and  inquires  what  it  is 
of  which  men  are  thus  guilty  ?  Of  the  act  of  Adam 
in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  ?  This  he  presumes 
Mr.  Harvey  will  not  say.  Of  the  act  of  God  in 
making  him  what  he  is,  antecedent  to,  and  inde- 
pendent of,  his  own  actions  ?  This,  no  one  will 
venture  to  affirm.  What  then  remains  ?  He  can- 
not be  charged  with  guilt  or  criminality  for  what 
others  have  done,  nor  for  the  bare  fact  of  being 
what  God  has  made  him.  It  must,  then,  be  for 
actings  and  for  his  own  act  too,  that  any  mord  be- 
ing can  possibly  be  considered  as  guilty.f 

*  Some  misrepresentations  have  been  made  respecting  the  au- 
thorship of  this  article.  The  facts  are  these.  Dr.  Porter,  of 
Farmington,  Ct.,  wrote  a  notice  of  the  Concio  for  the  Spectator, 
and  before  its  publication,  Mr.  H.'s  review  appeared.  Dr.  P.  be- 
ing then  occupied,  requested  of  the  editor  of  the  Spectator,  that 
a  suitable  notice  of  Mr.  H.  might  be  embodied  in  the  review 
of  the  Concio.  Prof  G.  therefore  inserted  this  part,  and  shaped 
the  article  accordingly. 

t  Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p.  347. 


128  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Unguarded  statements  respecting  depravity. 

The  writer  then  institutes  an  inquiry,  as  to  the 
reasons  why  some  Calvinistic  divines,  even  of  the 
present  day,  are  betrayed  into  unguarded  state- 
ments, Uke  those  of  Mr.  Harvey,  on  this  subject. 
The  principal  reasons  assigned,  are  the  use  of  lan- 
guage belonging  to  an  exploded  theory ;  viz.  that 
our  whole  race  were  in  the  view  of  God  one  with 
Adam,  and  that  his  sin  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit 
was  the  sin  of  each  one  of  his  descendants ;  the 
ambiguous  use  of  the  words,  source,  fountain,  dis- 
position, etc.  which  are  sometimes  used  to  denote 
constitutional  properties  of  the  soul  and  sometimes 
moral  dispositions ;  the  unfounded  assumption  that 
the  cause  of  a  given  effect  must  have  the  same 
moral  qualities  or  attributes  as  the  effect  itself,  so 
that  the  certainty  of  man's  entire  sinfulness  from 
the  commencement  of  moral  agency  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for,  without  supposing  a  sinful  nature  or 
constitution  of  the  soul.  Mr.  Harvey's  reasonings 
are  shewn  to  be  based  in  these  errors,  and  his  ar- 
gument for  a  sinful  nature,  aside  from  sinful  action, 
is  thus  confuted. 

After  briefly  considering  Mr.  Harvey's  argument 
from  scripture  and  from  the  condition  of  infants, 
the  reviewer  next  paisses  to  that  part  of  the  subject 
which  relates  to  the  theories  respecting  the  permis- 
sion of  sin.  To  the  question  raised  by  Dr.  Taylor 
in  the  note  to  his  sermon ;  viz.  for  what  reason  has 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  129 

Theories  accounting  for  the  permission  of  sin. 

God  permitted  sin  to  enter  the  universe  ?  he  sug- 
gests three  possible  answers. 

''  1.  God  could  not  prevent  its  existence. 

"  2.  Moral  beings  must,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  have  the  power  of  sinning ;  and  there  is  no 
evidence  that  God  could  have  overruled  that  power 
and  entirely  withheld  them  from  its  exercise,  by  a 
direct  interposition  of  his  providence,  and  yet  have 
sustained  a  moral  system  in  existerice.  Thus  sin 
as  to  God's  preventing — not  our  committing  it, — is 
a  necessary  incident  to  a  moral  system. 

"  3.  God  chose  that  sin  should  enter  the  universe 
as  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  possible 
good.  Wherever  it  exists,  therefore,  it  is,  on  the 
whole,  better  than  holiness  would  be  in  its  place. 
On  this  ground  God  permits  its  existence."* 

The  first  solution  is  attributed  to  Dr.  Taylor  by 
Mr.  Harvey,  but  without  the  least  foundation.  The 
whole  tenor  and  reasoning  of  his  note,  shews  that 
he  was  aiming  at  another  point. 

The  third  solution  is  the  theory  of  Mr.  Harvey, 
which  the  reviewer  considers  as  having  had  no 
small  share  in  creating  the  universal  scepticism  that 
prevailed  in  Europe,  towards  the  close  of  the  last 
century.  The  second  solution  is  that  which  is  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Taylor  as  a  possible,  if  not  a  satisfac- 

*  Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p.  378. 


130  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Mr.  H.'s  second  pamphlet. — He  abandons  his  original  ground. 


tory  mode  of  accounting  for  the  permission  of  sin. 
In  comparing  the  two  latter  theories  it  is  shewn, 
that  they  both  admit  the  omnipotence  of  God,  and 
his  universal  providence,  agency,  and  government ; 
and  while  both  acknowledge  the  necessary  exist- 
ence of  sin,  so  far  as  God's  prevention  of  it  is  con- 
cerned, that  they  differ  in  one  important  respect  ; 
viz.  the  one  places  the  ground  of  the  necessity  in 
the  relation  of  sin  as  a  means  of  the  greatest  good  ; 
and  the  other  in  the  relation  of  a  moral  government 
to  moral  beings,  who  must  of  course  be  governed 
by  motives,  and  be  free  to  choose,  in  view  of  them, 
either  good  or  evil.  On  the  one  theory,  God 
chooses  sin  as  a  means  of  good,  rather  than  holi- 
ness in  its  stead ;  on  the  other,  he  permits  it  to  take 
place  as  incidental,  in  respect  to  divine  prevention, 
to  the  best  system  possible  to  him.  In  the  one 
case,  sin  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  good,  because  pro- 
ductive of  good ;  in  the  other,  as  an  evil  which 
God  sincerely  desires  should  be  prevented  by  the 
voluntary  obedience  of  his  subjects. 

About  the  time  of  commencement  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, in  1829,  an  anonymous  pamphlet  appeared, 
entitled  *'  An  Examination  of  a  Review  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's sermon,  and  Mr.  Harvey's  Strictures  on  that 
sermon."  This  has  been  commonly  ascribed  to  Mr. 
Harvey,  and  the  authorship  has  never  been  denied. 
In  this  he  abandons  the  ground  he  had  before  ta- 


DR.    TAFLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  131 

How  mankind  are  sinners  from  their  birth. 

ken  respecting  the  nature  of  sin.  He  says  that  the 
doctrine  of  native  depravity,  does  not  involve  or  im- 
ply the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity. 
It  only  regards  the  fact,  that,  in  consequence  of  his 
transgression,  all  his  posterity  commence  their  ex- 
istence in  sin,  being  created  in  his  moral  likeness.* 
Accordingly  he  maintains,  that  mankind  come  into 
the  world  with  "a  voluntary  state  of  the  will" 
which  is  sinful,  and  which  is  derived  by  propaga- 
tion from  Adam.  It  is  this  "  voluntary  state  of  the 
will"  which  constitutes  them  sinners,  and  makes 
them  deserving  of  punishment.  Thus  he  now  as- 
cribes depravity  to  the  will,  and  not,  as  formerly,  to 
something  lying  hack  of  it,  in  the  structure  of  the 
soul  itself.  He  assures  us,  that  when  Mr.  Harvey 
asserted  that  nature  is  itself  sinful,  he  only  meant 
"  that  the  moral  state  of  man  is  sinful  from  his 
birth,  "t  He  also  says  that  the  period  of  existence 
in  man,  which  is  previous  to  a  knowledge  of  law, 
is  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  term  nature,  in 
the  present  discussion ;  and  that  the  simple  ques- 
tion is,  whether,  during  this  period,  there  is  moral 
depravity  in  the  human  character.|  On  a  compari- 
son of  these  statements,  therefore,  it  would  appear, 
that,  when  Mr.  Harvey  before  contended  for  "a 
nature  which  is  itself  sinful  and  the  efficient  cause 

*  Ex.  pp.  6, 10.  t  Ex.  p.  11.  I  Ex.  p.  12. 


132  CONTROVERSY    BETWEEN 

His  views  of  moral  agency. 


of  sin,"  he  meant  that  the  period  in  infancy  inter- 
vening between  birth  and  a  knowledge  of  law,  is 
itself  sinful  and  the  efficient  cause  of  sin;  or,  if 
the  proposition  were  to  be  expressed  in  more  intel- 
ligible language,  he  meant,  perhaps,  that  previous 
to  the  commencement  of  moral  agency,  the  will  is 
in  "a  voluntary  state"  of  transgression  which  is 
sinful,  and  that  this  state  of  the  will  is  the  cause 
of  all  subsequent  and  actual  sin. 

Mr.  Harvey  next  examines  what  he  calls  the 
theories  of  Dr.  Taylor  and  the  reviewer,  in  respect 
to  moral  agency,  the  nature  of  sin,  and  the  divine 
government.  He  understands  them  to  mean  by  a 
moral  agent,  a  being  who  has  not  only  a  rational 
soul  with  its  essential  attributes,  but  who  has  acted 
from  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  or  a  knowledge  of 
duty  in  the  mind.*  In  opposition  to  this  view  of 
moral  agency  ascribed  to  them,  he  gives  a  definition, 
which,  in  all  essential  points,  agrees  with  their  real 
meaning.  It  is  this.  A  moral  agent  is  one  who, 
possessing  moral  powers,  can  or  does  exercise  those 
powers.  Mr.  Harvey,  however,  in  his  own  mind 
evidently  excludes  one  thing  w^hich  is  essential  to 
moral  agency.  He  appears  not  to  regard  the  ca- 
pacity of  knowing  a  rule  of  duty,  as  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  complete  powers  of  moral  action. 

*  Ex.  p.  30. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  133 

Dr.  Dwight's  view  of  the  nature  of  sin. 

Accordingly  he  maintains  that,  previous  to  such 
knowledge,  mankind  are  sinners  by  having  from 
their  birth  a  wrong  "voluntary  state  of  the  will." 
Of  course,  in  his  mind,  sin  is  not  the  preference  of 
some  other  object  to  God  as  the  chief  good.  Such 
an  act  of  the  will,  in  his  view,  cannot  constitute  a 
permanent  depravity  and  occasion  moral  conduct 
uniformly  sinful.  There  must  be  some  state  of  the 
mind  or  will,  not  consisting  in  choice  or  prefer- 
ence, to  control  the  volitions  and  uniformly  produce 
wrong  moral  action. 

On  the  divine  government,  Mr.  Harvey  still  un- 
derstands Dr.  Taylor  and  the  reviewers,  notwith- 
standing their  explicit  statement  to  the  contrary, 
to  teach  that  God  wants  natural  power  to  prevent 
sin,  and  that  moral  agents  are  independent  of  his 
control.  He,  therefore,  considers  them  as  limiting 
the  omnipotence  of  Jehovah. 

Simultaneously  with  this  pamphlet,  appeared  an- 
other, entitled,  "  An  inquiry  into  the  natiu-e  of  sin, 
as  exhibited  in  Dr.  Dwight's  Theology,  by  Cleri- 
cus."  This  was  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Taylor,  and 
his  design  was  to  shew  the  agreement  between 
himself  and  Dr.  Dwight,  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
sin.  Their  agreement  on  this  subject,  is  founded 
in  the  fact,  that  both  resolve  all  sin  into  preference. 
Dr.  Dwight  says,  "  sin  universally  is  no  other  than 
selfishness,  or  a  preference  of  one's  self  to  all  other 
12 


134  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Mr.  Harvey's  new  doctrine  of  depravity  examined. 

beings,  and  of  one's  private  interests  and  gratifica- 
tion, to  the  well  being  of  the  universe  ;  of  God  and 
the  intelligent  creation."*  ''  Selfishness  consists  in 
the  prefei^ence  of  ourselves  to  others,  and  to  all  oth- 
ers ;  to  the  universe  and  to  God.  This  is  sin ;  and 
all  that  in  the  scriptures  is  meant  by  sin."f  "  Man 
is  the  actor  of  his  own  sin.  His  sin  is  therefore 
wholly  his  own,  chaigeable  only  to  himself;  chosen 
by  him  unnecessarily,  while  possessed  of  a  power 
to  choose  otherwise  ;  avoidable  by  him ;  and  of 
course  guilty,  and  righteously  punishable."}  Other 
statements  of  his  in  regard  to  disposition  as  a  cause 
of  moral  action ;  in  regard  to  the  moral  image  of 
God  in  which  man  was  created ;  the  natural  ability 
of  man  to  obey  or  disobey  the  law  of  God  ,•  and  the 
nature  of  regeneration ;  properly  interpreted,  do  not 
contradict  the  preceding  declarations  respecting 
the  nature  of  sin.  He  is  therefore  to  be  under- 
stood, as  agreeing  on  this  subject  with  Dr.  Taylor 
himself.  Such  is  the  main  argument  of  the  pam- 
phlet under  consideration. 

To  this  was  added  a  Postscript,  in  answer  to  the 
second  pamphlet  of  Mr.  Harvey.  In  this  it  was 
claimed  that  Mr.  Harvey  had  abandoned  the  ori- 
ginal ground  of  controversy,  in  maldng  the  main 


*  Ser.  100,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  464.  t  Ser.  80,  p.  162. 

X  Ser.  Vol.  I.  p.  460. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     MR.    HARVEY.  135 

Mr.  H.  admits  a  necessity  for  the  existence  of  sin. 

inquiry  now  to  be,  not  whether  there  is  in  man  a 
nature  itself  sinful,  and  the  efficient  cause  of  sin ; 
but  whether  mankind  are  voluntary  transgressors 
from  their  birth  ?  This  being  the  ground  which 
he  assumes,  the  difference  of  opinion  now  relates  to 
trivial  matters,  and  cannot  long  divide  the  parties 
who  are  opponents.  The  one  maintains  that  in- 
fants sin,  as  soon  as  they  can  sin,  and  the  other, 
that  they  can  sin  and  do  sin,  as  soon  as  they  come 
into  the  world.  It  is  also  shewn  that  all  which  has 
ever  been  claimed  by  Dr.  Taylor,  in  regard  to  the 
divine  permission  of  sin,  is,  that  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  God  could,  in  a  moral  system,  prevent  a  greater 
degree  of  sin  than  the  present,  by  adopting  a  differ- 
ent system  of  influences  from  that  which  he  adopts ; 
a  fact  which  is  conceded  by  Mr.  Harvey.  He, 
however,  represents  Dr.  Taylor  as  asserting  that 
God  could  not  prevent  sin,  in  a  moral  system,  with- 
out destroying  the  power  to  sin ;  and  that  moral 
agents,  therefore,  who  possess  the  power,  are  inde- 
pendent of  controlling  influences  exerted  by  God. 
Thus  far,  the  object  has  been,  not  only  to  state 
the  principal  topics  which  have  been  discussed,  but 
to  exhibit  at  considerable  length,  the  arguments 
employed  by  the  respective  parties  in  the  contro- 
versy. This  has  been  done  for  the  purpose  of  exhi- 
biting to  the  reader,  who  has  not  had  opportunity 
to  examine  the  subject,  the  commencement,  pro- 


136  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

The  point  mainly  discussed. 

gress  and  state  of  the  controversy  as  it  existed,  when 
the  original  champion  in  opposition  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
retired  from  the  field.  From  the  view  which  has 
been  taken,  it  appears,  that  the  discussion  hitherto 
has  related  mainly  to  a  single  point  of  doctrine,  viz. 
what  is  the  nature  of  sin  ?  The  Professor  of  Divin- 
ity in  Yale  College  maintained,  "  that  sin,  in  every 
form  and  instance,  is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral 
agent  in  which  he  violates  a  known  rule  of  duty." 
The  Dwight  Professor  of  Didactic  Theology,  car- 
ried out  this  doctrine  in  his  investigation  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  moral  depravity  of  man.  He  referred  it 
to  man's  own  act,  consisting  in  a  free  choice  of  some 
object  rather  than  God,  as  his  chief  good ;  or  a  free 
preference  of  the  world  and  worldly  good  to  the  will 
and  glory  of  God.  He  shewed  that  this  preference 
is  a  permanent  sinful  disposition,  leading  to  all  other 
acts  of  transgression.  The  conductors  of  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  in  defending  these  views,  entered 
into  the  discussion  of  the  question,  what  is  the  oc- 
casion of  the  universal  preference  in  men  of  worldly 
good  to  God  ?  They  attributed  it  to  the  constitu- 
tional propensities  of  our  fallen  nature,  not  them- 
selves sinful,  which,  in  all  the  appropriate  circiun- 
stances  of  our  being,  universally  and  invariably  in- 
fluence the  mind  to  a  choice  of  the  wrong  objects, 
as  a  chief  good,  and  result  in  the  entire  moral  de- 
pravity of  mankind.     These  doctrines  the  Christian 


DR.     TAYLOR     AND     MR.      HARVEY.       137 

New  topics  of  discussion. 

Advocate  and  Mr.  Harvey  opposed.  They  main- 
tained that  there  is  sin  which  does  not  consist  in 
the  transgression  of  known  law,  but  in  the  nature 
which  the  race  derives  from  Adam.  With  one  ar- 
ticle the  Christian  Advocate  gave  over  the  contro- 
versy ;  and  in  a  second,  Mr.  Harvey  virtually  yield- 
ed the  point,  and  entered  upon  the  new  inquiry, 
whether  men  are  sinners  from  their  birth  ?  The 
doctrine  originally  under  discussion,  therefore,  seem- 
ed likely  to  be  finally  settled  between  Dr.  Fitch, 
Dr.  Taylor  and  the  Christian  Spectator  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Dr.  Green  and  his  coadjutors  and  Mr. 
Harvey  on  the  other.  Whether  the  doctrine  was 
thus  settled,  remains  to  be  seen.  Two  questions 
of  secondary  importance,  as  there  will  be  occasion 
hereafter  to  shew,  assumed  the  prominent  place  and 
became  the  chief  subject  of  dispute  ;  viz.  when  do 
mankind  begin  to  sin  ?  and,  what  is  the  reason  of 
the  divine  permission  of  sin  ?  Before  a  further  ac- 
count of  the  discussion  of  these  points  is  given,  some 
notice  must  be  taken  of  the  commencement  and 
progress  of  another  branch  of  the  controversy,  which 
enlisted  other  pens  in  opposition  to  the  New  Haven 
sentiments. 

12* 


138 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  DR.  TAYLOR 
AND  DR.  TYLER. 

Review  of  Spring  on  the  means  of  regeneration. 

In  the  successive  numbers  of  the  Christian  Spec- 
tator for  1829,  was  pubUshed  a  review,  by  Dr.  Tay- 
lor, of  Spring  on  the  means  of  regeneration.*  After 
a  favorable  notice  of  the  work  in  general,  the  re- 
viewer expresses  his  regret  that  the  author  of  the 
dissertation,  has  not  rendered  more  apparent  the 
consistency  between  the  inculcation  of  immediate 
repentance,  which  he  recommends,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  sinner's  dependence ;  and  states  it  as 
his  object  to  exhibit  this  consistency,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  overthrowing  the  standing  objection  of  many 
unrenewed  men,  that  they  have  nothing  to  do,  be- 
cause all  they  shall  do  will  be  either  vain  or  sinful ; 
and  of  bringing  the  obligation  and  practicability  of 
immediate  duty,  clearly  before  their  minds. 

A  brief  statement  of  the  principal  positions  main- 
tained in  the  review,  is  necessary  to  a  proper  exhi- 

*  A  considerable  part  of  this  article,  containing  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  the  discussion,  it  is  understood,  was  read  before 
its  publication,  to  Dr.  Spring,  who  expressed  his  opinion,  thftt 
it  ought  to  be  published. 


CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN,     &C.         139 
Regeneration  not  a  physical  change. 

bition  of  the  succeeding  controversy.  The  follow- 
ing are  the  main  points  insisted  on.  The  term  re- 
generation, when  used  in  respect  to  man  as  the  sub- 
ject of  it,  in  a  popular  and  general  sense,  includes 
all  the  acts  of  the  understanding  and  of  the  will, 
which  take  place  in  the  conversion  of  a  sinner  to 
God.  In  a  restricted  sense,  as  used  by  standard 
theological  writers,  and  in  which  it  is  used  by  the 
reviewer,  it  is  confined  simply  to  the  act  of  the  will 
or  heart,  which  consists  in  the  preference  of  God  to 
every  other  object,  in  distinction  from  the  mental 
acts  which  are  connected  with  it,  and  which  in  the 
order  of  nature,  though  not  of  perceptible  time,  pre- 
cede it.  This  preference  is  the  act  of  the  sinner 
transferring,  in  view  of  truth  and  the  motives  which 
he  contemplates,  his  affections  from  the  world  to 
God,  as  the  object  of  his  supreme  regard ;  and  is  the 
result  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the 
mind.  The  change  therefore,  effected  in  regenera- 
tion, is  not  of  a  physical  nature,  but  of  a  voluntary 
character ;  one  in  which  man  is  active,  as  a  moral 
agent,  choosing  in  view  of  motives,  God  as  his  su- 
preme good.  This  act,  or  exercise  of  the  will  or 
heart,  constitutes  a  permanent  and  controlling  mo- 
ral disposition.  The  sinner  in  preferring  the  world 
to  God,  is  a  being  supremely  selfish.  While  the 
selfish  principle  remains  the  predominant  and  con- 
trolling disposition,  the  acts  which  are  commonly 


140  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Use  of  the  means  of  regeneration. 

considered  as  constituting  the  use  of  the  means  of 
regeneration,  are  themselves  sinful,  and  never  do, 
and  in  the  nature  of  things,  never  can  produce  the 
change.  The  selfish  principle,  however,  is  capa- 
ble of  being  suspended ;  so  that  under  the  prompt- 
ings of  self-love,  or  the  desire  of  happiness,  which 
is  an  ultimate  principle  of  our  nature,  neither  sinful 
nor  holy,  the  sinner  contemplates  God  and  the  world 
as  objects  of  choice,  ''  substantially  as  they  would 
be  contemplated  by  a  being  who  had  just  entered 
on  existence,  and  who  was  called  upon,  for  the  first 
time,  to  select  the  one  or  the  other  as  his  supreme 
good."  In  other  words,  the  supreme  love  of  the 
world  ceases,  for  the  instant  of  time  previous  to 
the  act  of  preferring  God  to  the  world,  to  confine 
thought  and  feeling  exclusively  to  its  object ;  and 
the  constitutional  desire  of  happiness  influences  the 
mind  to  a  contemplation  of  truth  and  motives,  which 
properly  considered,  are  the  means  of  regeneration 
in  the  limited  signification  of  the  term,  as  used  by 
the  reviewer.  Those  acts  which  are  thus  dictated 
by  self-love  or  the  instinctive  desire  of  happiness, 
and  which  are  prior  to  that  act  of  the  will  or  heart 
which  is  called  regeneration  in  the  restricted  sense, 
constitute  the  sinner's  using  the  means  of  grace. 
When  these  means  are  thus  used,  they  become,  in 
an  indivisible  moment,  according  to  the  laws  of 
moral  action,  the  occasion  of  a  right  act  of  the  will 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  141 

How  the  immediate  performance  of  duty  is  practicable. 

or  affection  of  the  heart.  The  suspension  of  the  sel- 
fish principle  does  not  change  the  moral  character, 
or  produce  a  state  of  neutrality  ;  for,  it  is  not  till  the 
affections  are  placed  on  God,  by  the  last  act  in  the 
process  of  regeneration,  (when  the  term  is  used  in 
its  popular  meaning,  to  include  the  entire  series  of 
of  acts,)  that  such  a  change  takes  place.  The  men- 
tal acts,  also,  which  constitute  using  the  means  of 
regeneration,  and  the  moral  act  which  is  the  result, 
are  separated  by  no  measurable  duration ;  so  that 
whenever  regeneration  is  spoken  of  in  the  popular 
sense,  the  term  includes  the  whole  series  of  acts  de- 
scribed, both  mental  and  moral.  This  view  of  the 
subject,  the  reviewer  claims,  shews  the  way,  and 
the  only  way,  in  which  the  immediate  performance 
of  duty  is  practicable  by  the  sinner ;  and  secures 
to  the  doctrine  of  dependence,  its  true  practical  in- 
fluence on  his  mind.  Thus  the  propriety  of  ex- 
hortations to  immediate  duty,  in  view  of  the  sin- 
ner's dependence  on  the  grace  of  God,  is  mani- 
fested ;  and  the  objection  is  removed,  that  he  has 
nothing  to  do,  because  all  he  shall  do,  will  be  either 
vain  or  sinful. 

On  this  review,  "  Strictures"  were  pubhshed  by 
the  Rev.  Bennet  Tyler,  D.  D.,  then  pastor  of  a  Con- 
gregational church  in  Portland.  The  main  body 
of  this  pamphlet  was  written  before  the  appearance 
of  the  concluding  article  of  the  review.     The  au- 


142  CONTROVERSY    BETWEEN 

Dr.  Tyler's  Strictures. — Positions  maintained. 

thor  in  his  preface  professes  to  believe  that  th« 
writer  of  the  review,  though  he  "  has  not  formally 
denied  any  one  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  system, 
has  adopted  principles,  in  his  statements  and  expla- 
nations, which  will  lead,  by  inevitable  consequence, 
to  the  denial  of  important  doctrines ;  and  that  his 
speculations  will  pave  the  way  for  the  gradual  in- 
flux of  error  upon  the  American  churches,  disas- 
trous to  the  interests  of  evangelicsd  religion ;  and 
declares,  that  nothing  but  the  dangerous  tendency 
of  these  speculations,  and  the  necessity  of  some 
counteracting  influence,  could  have  induced  him 
to  appear  in  this  manner  before  the  public." 

In  his  introduction,  though  he  says  that  he  does 
not  intend  to  insinuate,  that  the  writer  of  the  re- 
view has  gone  over  to  the  ranks  of  Arminianism, 
he  expresses  his  conviction,  that  there  is  no  middle 
ground  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  ;  and 
intimates  his  serious  apprehensions,  that  the  re- 
viewer has  departed  from  the  radical  principles  of 
the  former,  and  is  approximating  to  those  of  the 
latter.  It  is  important  that  these  statements  be 
borne  in  mind  by  the  reader,  as  he  proceeds  in  the 
history  of  the  discussion  between  Dr.  Tyler  and 
the  writer  of  the  review.  The  positions  attempted 
to  be  maintained  in  the  Strictures,  will  now  be  ex- 
hibited. The  leading  point  contended  for  is,  that 
sinners  properly  speaking,  never  use  the  means  of 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  143 

Means  of  regeneration  never  used  by  sinners. 

regeneration ;  that  is,  that  no  acts  performed  by  the 
sinner  antecedent  to  a  change  of  heart,  are  means 
of  effecting  this  change.  The  brief  argument  by 
which  this  point  is  decided,  is  the  following.  "  If 
sinners  use  the  means  of  regeneration  they  must 
use  them  with  a  holy  heart,  or  an  unholy  heart,  or 
no  heart  at  all ;  that  is,  with  right  motives,  or 
wrong  motives,  or  no  motives  at  all.  If  with  right 
motives,  the  change  is  already  effected,  and  the 
end  precedes  the  means ; — if  with  wrong  motives, 
their  actions  are  sinful,  and  sin  is  the  means  of  ho- 
liness ; — if  with  no  motive  at  all,  they  act  without 
design,  and  cannot  be  using  means  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  an  end."  "  How,  then,"  it  is  asked, 
as  the  conclusion,  "  can  this  scheme  be  maintained, 
without  first  denying  the  entire  depravity  of  the 
unrenewed  heart,  and  thus  striking  at  the  founda- 
tion of  the  doctrines  of  grace  ?"*  Thus  making 
motives  synonymous  with  heart,  which  he  uses  to 
denote  a  voluntary  state  of  the  mind.  Dr.  Tyler,  in 
a  single  syllogism,  aims  to  overthrow  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  review  ;  and  to  establish  the 
position,  that  sinners  never  use  the  means  of  regen- 
eration. He  then  proceeds  to  an  examination  of 
what  he  calls  the  theory  of  the  reviewer,  in  regard 
to  the  sinner's  using  the  means  of  regeneration.   He 

*  Page  8. 


144  CONTROVERSY    BETWEEN 

Selfish  principle  not  suspended. 

first  expresses  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  use  of  the 
term  regeneration,  in  its  restricted  sense,  as  used  hy 
Dr.  Taylor,  claiming  that  it  should  be  used  to  de- 
note the  divine  operation  in  renewing  the  heart.* 
He,  however,  siftervvards  says,  that  "in  its  popular 
import  it  denotes  an  instantaneous  change ;  as  in- 
stantaneous as  the  transition  from  darkness  to  light, 
or  from  death  to  life  ;  as  instantaneous  as  any  vol- 
untary act  of  the  mind  can  be  supposed  to  be  ;  and 
in  its  theological  import  it  cannot  be  understood  in 
a  more  restricted  sense,  "f  He  next  attempts  to 
point  out  a  mistake  of  the  reviewer,  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  selfishness.  He  supposes  that  it  con- 
sists in  the  supreme  love  of  self;  a  principle  of  the 
heart  which  leads  an  individual  to  regard  himself 
more  than  God ;  and  his  own  interest  and  happi- 
ness more  than  all  the  universe  beside ;  while  the 
reviewer  considers  the  principle  here  spoken  of,  as 
being  itself  the  preference  of  the  world  to  God  as 
our  chief  good. J  He  then  passes  to  his  main  ob- 
ject, the  examination  of  the  reviewer's  theory  in 
respect  to  using  the  means  of  regeneration.  This 
he  asserts,  rests  on  a  hypothesis  unsupported  by 
evidence,  and  contradicted  by  facts  and  the  word 
of  God.  The  hypothesis  is,  that  the  selfish  princi- 
ple is  suspended  antecedent  to  regeneration ;  and 

»  pp.  11, 12.  t  pp.  13,  14.  t  pp.  14,  15. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  145 

Distinction  between  sin  and  holiness. 

that  certain  acts,  dictated  by  self-love,  constitute 
using  the  means  of  regeneration.  He  argues  that 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  suspension  of  the 
selfish  principle  antecedent  to  regeneration  ;  be- 
cause the  sinner  is  a  selfish  being,  and  no  act  dicta- 
ted by  selfishness  has  any  tendency  to  subdue  or 
to  suspend  selfishness. '  He  then  points  out  what 
he  thinks  a  grand  mistake  of  the  reviewer,  as  to  the 
radical  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin.  He 
understands  him  to  maintain,  that  self-love  or  the 
desire  of  happiness,  is  the  ultimate  end  of  action  in 
all  moral  beings.  He  considers  this  as  destroying 
the  radical  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin ; 
because  both  may  be  traced  to  the  same  principle 
of  action.  Holiness,  he  says,  consists  in  benevo- 
lence or  disinterested  love  ;  sin  in  supreme  selfish- 
ness. In  a  holy  being  self-love  is  not  a  controlling 
principle ;  with  the  sinner  it  is ;  the  former  does 
not  regard  his  own  personal  happiness  as  his  ulti- 
mate end ;  with  the  latter,  his  ultimate  end  is  his 
own  personal  happiness.* 

Next,  he  attempts  to  shew  that  the  reviewer  has 
mistaken  the  true  way  of  reconciling  the  doctrine 
of  the  sinner's  dependence  on  God,  and  the  obliga- 
tion of  immediate  repentance.  According  to  his 
view,  the  real  difficulty  with  the  sinner  is  a  denial 


pp.  20, 21. 
13 


146 


CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 


Queries  proposed  by  Dr.  Tyler. 


of  his  obligation ;  and  this  is  removed  by  convin- 
cing him  of  his  natural  ability  to  repent,  and  shew- 
ing him  that  the  fault  lies  in  the  perverseness  of  his 
will.  According  to  the  reviewer,  the  sinner,  even 
after  admitting  his  obligation,  derives  another  ob- 
jection from  his  dependence,  viz.  the  hopelessness 
of  success  in  the  effort ;  and  this  objection  can  be 
removed  only  by  shewing,  that  with  a  proper  use 
of  the  means  of  regeneration,  the  work  Tnay  he  ac- 
comphshed.     Otherwise,  the  sinner  must  despair. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  Strictures,  Dr.  Tyler 
proposes  and  discusses,  with  a  view  of  deciding  in 
the  affirmative,  the  following  queries  ;  whether,  ac- 
cording to  the  representations  of  Dr.  Taylor,  regen- 
eration is  not  a  progressive  work  ;  whether  his  the- 
ory does  not  involve  the  inconsistency  of  supposing 
that  the  heart  is  changed  antecedent  to  regenera- 
tion ;  whether  the  sinner's  conviction  of  sin,  while 
using  the  means  of  regeneration  as  described,  would 
not  cease ;  whether  this  scheme  does  not  dispense 
with  the  necessity  of  the  divine  influence  in  regen- 
eration ;  whether  it  does  not  represent  the  sinner  as 
laboring  under  a  natural  inability  to  do  his  duty  ; 
whether  it  does  not  deny  the  doctrine  of  sovereign, 
distinguishing  grace  ;  whether,  if  drawn  out  in  de- 
tail and  inculcated  by  the  teachers  of  religion,  it 
hEis  not  a  tendency  to  stifle  conviction  of  sin  and 
produce  spurious  conversions.     To  these  are  added 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  147 

Dr.  Taylor  charged  with  inconsistency. — Review  of  the  Strictures. 

a  few  remarks,  in  which  Dr.  Taylor  is  represented 
as  teaching  that  the  Spirit  never  operates  directly 
on  the  mind,  but  only  through  the  medium  of  truth 
or  motives ;  and  in  which  he  is  censured  for  what 
he  has  advanced  respecting  the  manner  of  preach- 
ing the  gospel. 

The  pamphlet  closes  with  an  appendix,  designed 
to  defend  the  positions  before  maintained  by  the 
writer  against  the  final  statements  and  explanations 
of  Dr.  Taylor,  as  made  in  the  concluding  part  of 
the  review,  which  was  published  after  the  main 
body  of  the  Strictures  was  written.  In  this  ap- 
pendix, Dr.  Tyler  charges  the  reviewer  with  the 
inconsistency  of  maintaining,  at  one  time,  that  re- 
generation is  a  gradual  work,  and  again  limiting 
it  to  an  indivisible  moment ;  that  sinners  cease  to 
sin  during  the  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle, 
and  again,  that  during  this  period  they  still  go  on 
to  sin.  He  further  discusses  the  question  in  regard 
to  the  ultimate  end  of  action,  and  insists  more  at 
large  on  the  method  of  meeting  the  sinner's  objec- 
tion Eigainst  the  immediate  performance  of  duty ; 
but  as  no  new  positions  of  importance  are  taken,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  give  this  part  of  the  pamphlet  a 
more  particular  notice. 

The  Strictures  were  reviewed  by  Dr.  Taylor,  in 
the  Christisin  Spectator,  for  March,  1830.  In  main- 
taining his  former  positions,  he  shews  that  it  is  the 


148  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

How  sinners  use  the  means  of  regeneration. 

current  language  of  theologians  to  speak  of  using 
the  means  of  regeneration,  and  that  the  writer  of 
the  Strictures  is  peculiar  and  alone,  in  his  denial  of 
any  such  use.  He  examines  the  arguments  by 
which  Dr.  Tyler  attempts  to  overthrow  this  gen- 
erally received  doctrine.  Dr.  Tyler  had  attempted 
to  show,  by  a  three-fold  impossibility,  that  sinners 
cannot  use  the  means  of  regeneration.  Dr.  Taylor 
replies,  then  is  moral  agency  subverted ;  since  he 
who  has  neither  a  sinful  heart,  nor  a  holy  heart,  nor 
any  heart  at  all,  cannot  be  a  moral  agent.  He  con- 
cedes that  sinners  never  use  the  means  of  regene- 
ration with  a  holy  heart,  nor  with  an  unholy  or 
sinful  heart ;  but  denies  that  they  do  not  use  them 
with  any  heart  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  when  they 
are  required  to  love  God  with  all  their  heart,  it  is 
to  be  done  with  a  real  heart,  consisting  in  those 
powers  and  properties  of  moral  agency,  which  qual- 
ify its  subject  to  exercise  moral  affections ;  and  in- 
stead of  using  them  with  a  right  or  a  wrong  heart, 
they  act  from  a  constitutional  susceptibility  to  the 
good  in  the  object  of  right  affection,  or  from  a  de- 
sire of  happiness.*  This  Dr.  Tyler  admits,  when 
he  says,  that,  ''there  can  be  no  volition  without 
motive,"  "  no  act  of  choice  without  some  object 
perceived  by  the  mind ;"  and  that  regeneration  in 

*  Christian  Spectator,  1830,  p.  150. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  149 

The  term  regeneration  used  in  a  restricted  sense. 

its  restricted  sense,  is  "the  first  moral  act  of  the 
new-born  soul."  For,  on  these  principles,  this  first 
act  must  take  place  through  the  mind's  perception 
of  some  object  regarded  as  good,  and  consequently 
under  the  impulse  of  a  desire  for  happiness.  So, 
when  he  says  that  the  sinner  is  able  to  do  his  duty, 
he  admits  the  same  thing ;  for,  the  sinner  cannot 
do  his  duty  with  wrong  motives,  nor  with  no  mo- 
tives at  all ;  nor  can  he  from  right  motives,  except 
as  he  uses  truth  and  motives  with  his  constitutional 
powers,  from  the  impulse  of  his  constitutional  de- 
sires. 

Next  Dr.  Taylor  examines  the  Strictures  in  re- 
gard to  the  use  and  application  of  terms ;  and  shews 
that  the  best  theological  writers,  and  the  scriptures 
themselves,  authorize  the  use  of  the  term  regene- 
ration to  denote  the  moral  change  in  man  produced 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  they  sometimes  speak 
of  this  as  a  complex  act,  including  both  an  act  of 
the  understanding  and  of  the  will,  and  sometimes 
employ  it  to  denote  the  latter  in  distinction  from 
the  former.  He  also  justifies  the  use  which  he  has 
made  of  the  terms  self-love  and  selfishness ;  the 
former  denoting  the  constitutional  desire  of  happi- 
ness, common  to  all  moral  beings  ;  and  the  latter, 
the  moral  'preference  of  other  objects  to  God,  as  the 
supreme  good.  Self-love  therefore  is  not  a  supreme 
affection,  as  he  is  represented  to  teach  by  Dr.  Tyler, 
13* 


150 


CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 


Self-love  distinguished  from  selfishness. 


who  confounds  the  primary  cause  or  reason  of  such 
an  affection  with  the  affection  itself,  and  so  denies, 
that  it  has  any  cause.  Hence,  to  represent,  that 
if  all  actions  are  prompted  by  self-love  or  the  de- 
sire of  happiness,  there  is  no  distinction  between  sin 
and  holiness,  is  to  refer  moral  distinctions  to  the 
essential  attributes  or  constitutional  propensities  of 
our  being,  instead  of  referring  them  to  the  choice 
of  the  mind.  Besides,  is  it  selfish  and  sinful  to 
desire,  and  thus  to  choose,  the  very  happiness  in 
kind,  by  which  God  would  induce  us  to  choose 
him  as  our  portion  ?  Is  there  no  difference,  between 
choosing  this  kind  of  happiness  from  the  desire  of 
it,  and  choosing  that  lower  kind  of  happiness  which 
the  world  proffers  ?  And  yet  in  each  instance  the 
choice  would  be  prompted  by  the  desire  of  happi- 
ness. To  deny,  then,  that  self-love,  or  the  desire 
of  happiness,  is  the  principle  from  which  the  first 
right  moral  affection  or  choice  springs,  is  not  only 
to  subvert  all  moral  distinctions,  but  to  deny  the 
existence  of  motives  in  a  change  of  heart ;  and  is 
thus  to  deny  the  possibility  of  moral  action,  and 
consequently  to  destroy  moral  agency.  The  re- 
viewer then  considers  the  objections  brought  for- 
ward by  Dr.  Tyler  in  the  Strictures ;  and  shews 
that  they  are  founded  on  a  false  philosophy  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  moral  agency,  and  an  inadequate 
view  of  the  rapidity  and  comprehensiveness  of  the 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  151 

Mistakes  about  moral  agency. 

mental  operation  in  the  complex  act  of  turning  to 
God.  The  mistake  in  regard  to  moral  agency  is, 
that  there  is  in  man  no  principle  of  voluntary  ac- 
tion, except  the  selfish  principle ;  consequently, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  his  acting,  except  under 
its  influence,  till  he  is  physically  changed.  In  re- 
gard to  the  complex  act  in  regeneration,  the  first 
error  consists  in  supposing,  that  the  act  occupies  a 
considerable  period  of  time  ;  whereas  it  is  a  process 
or  series  of  acts  only  in  the  order  of  nature,  and 
not  of  time  ;  and  given  only  by  that  mental  analy- 
sis by  which  we  distinguish  the  thought  of  an  ob- 
ject from  the  choice  of  it.  These  acts,  or  rather  this 
complex  act,  therefore,  no  more  occupies  a  meas- 
urable duration,  than  the  complex  act  of  thought, 
feeling,  and  volition,  in  which  one,  meeting  a  lion 
in  his  path,  should  instantaneously  choose  to  avoid 
the  danger,  and  fly  to  a  refuge  at  hand ;  or  than 
that  in  which  a  sinner,  like  the  Psalmist,  should 
*  think  on  his  ways,  and  turn  to  God.'  Ps.  119  :  59. 
The  second  error  respects  the  question,  whether  it 
is  possible  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  man  should 
choose  God,  or  any  other  object,  without  first  think- 
ing of  and  desiring  that  object  as  a  good ;  or  wheth- 
er, as  Edwards  says,  '  the  will  is  as  the  greatest  ap- 
parent good?'  Dr.  Tyler  denies  this  distinction; 
Dr.  Taylor  affirms  it.  From  these  mistakes  have 
originated  the  queries  and  charges  of  contradiction 
which  occupy  the  concluding  part  of  the  Strictures. 


152  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Dr.  Tyler's  2d  pamphlet. 

This  review,  together  with  a  pamphlet  signed 
Evangehcus  Pacificus,  and  written  by  the  Rev. 
Hubbard  Winslow,  called  forth  another  pamphlet 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Tyler,  in  vindication  of  his 
Strictures.  As  this  contains  little  more  than  a  rep- 
etition, in  a  variety  of  forms  and  with  some  am- 
plification, of  the  principles  and  arguments  of  his 
former  publication,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  enter 
very  minutely  into  its  details.  The  following  ac- 
count will  be  sufficient.  Dr.  Tyler  says  that  he 
has  no  dispute  with  Dr.  Taylor,  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes a  free  moral  agent ;  nor  in  regard  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  self-love  and  selfishness.  He 
maintains,  however,  that  in  holy  beings  self-love  is 
a  subordinate  principle  under  the  control  of  univer- 
sal benevolence  ;  but  in  moral  beings,  destitute  of 
benevolence,  self-love  becomes  the  controlling  prin- 
ciple, and  is  the  same  as  selfishness.  He  also  says, 
that  if  the  reviewer,  "  when  he  says  that  self-love 
is  the  primary  cause  of  moral  action,  and  that  of 
all  specific  voluntary  action  the  happiness  of  the 
agent  in  some  form  is  his  ultimate  end,"  only  means 
that  man  "  could  incline  to  nothing  and  will  noth- 
ing," unless  things  are  either  "  pleasing  or  displeas- 
ing, agreeable  or  disagreeable  to  him,"  then  he  has 
no  dispute  with  him.*    Yet  he  maintains  that,  if 


20. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  153 

Admits  that  happiness  is  the  ultimate  end  of  action. 

personal  happiness  is  the  ultimate  end  of  pursuit, 
the  character  is  selfish  ;  and  that  the  distinction  of 
moral  character  does  not  lie  merely  in  the  choice 
of  diiferent  objects.  He  then  states  the  turning 
point  of  the  whole  discussion  to  be,  "  whether  the 
selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart 
antecedent  to  regeneration  ?  This  he  considers  as 
identical  with  the  question,  whether  the  last  sinful 
act  is  immediately  followed  by  the  first  holy  act, 
without  the  intervention  of  a  series  of  acts  and 
states  of  mind  which  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy. 
He  affirms,  that  giving  a  heart  of  flesh  is  the  sEime 
as  taking  away  the  heart  of  stone ;  that  putting  on 
the  new  man  is  the  same  as  putting  off  the  old  j 
and  that  beginning  to  be  holy,  is  ceasing  to  be  sin- 
ful.* In  support  of  this  view,  he  maintains,  that 
the  intellectual  apprehension  which  is  essential  to 
an  act  of  choice  is  not  a  voluntary  act,  nor  distinct 
from  the  act  of  choice  itself;  but  that  the  percep- 
tion of  the  divine  character  is  included  in  the  act  of 
preferring  or  loving  God ;  and  that  there  can  there- 
fore be  no  series  of  acts  and  states  of  mind  which 
constitute  using  the  means  of  regeneration.  He 
then  discusses  at  length  the  question,  whether  Dr. 
Taylor's  theory  does  not  involve  the  doctrine  of 
progressive  regeneration ;  and  by  numerous  passa- 

*p.  27. 


154  CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN 

Regeneration  instantaneous. — Reply  to  Dr.  Tyler's  2d  pamphlet. 

ges  from  the  review,  in  which  the  mental  acts  are 
described  that  constitute  using  the  means  of  regen- 
eration, attempts  to  show  that  the  statements  con- 
template a  period  of  measurable  duration,  rather 
than  an  indivisible  moment  of  time.  A  re-examina- 
tion of  the  grounds  of  the  sinner's  obligation  to  do 
his  duty,  and  of  the  manner  of  meeting  his  objec- 
tions on  account  of  his  dependence,  principally  oc- 
cupy the  concluding  pages  of  the  "  Vindication." 

A  brief  notice  of  the  pamphlet  was  published  in 
the  Spectator  for  June,  written,  in  the  absence  of 
Dr.  Taylor,  by  the  Editor,  Professor  Goodrich.  He 
first  shows  that  Dr.  Tyler,  when  he  admits,  "  that 
man  could  will  nothing,  unless  things  are  either 
pleasing  or  displeasing  to  him,"  virtually  concedes, 
all  that  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  when  he  says,  that 
the  happiness  of  the  agent  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all 
action.  He  shows  that  Dr.  Tyler,  throughout  his 
whole  argument,  has  confounded  two  great  depart- 
ments of  human  agency,  viz.  that  of  constitutional 
properties  or  propensities,  and  that  of  choice  or  vol- 
mitary  action.  These  are  perfectly  distinct,  and 
easily  distinguishable  ;  the  former  being  founded  in 
the  desire  of  happiness,  and  the  latter  consisting  in 
acts  of  choice,  to  which  alone,  as  implying  power 
to  the  contrary,  can  pertain  the  quality  of  right  and 
wrong.  Into  this  error,  in  one  instance.  Dr.  Tyler 
falls,  in  denying  the  distinction  between  self-love 


DR.      TAYLOR     AND     DR.      TYLER.         155 
He:  confounds  constitutional  propensities,  and  moral  action. 

and  selfishness  in  unrenewed  men.  When  he  as- 
serts that  in  moral  beings  destitute  of  benevolence, 
self-love  becomes  the  controlling  principle,  and  is 
then  the  same  as  selfishness,  he  makes  a  constitu- 
tional desire,  which  is  the  primary  cause  of  moral 
action,  moral  action  itself ;  both  cause  and  effect! 
So  again  he  falls  into  the  same  confusion  when  he 
denomices,  as  destroying  the  distinction  between 
sin  and  holiness,  the  statement,  that  the  ultimate 
end  aimed  at  in  every  act  of  choice,  is  happiness. 
He  thus  makes  blame  attach  to  constitutional  pro- 
pensities, while  it  is  predicable  only  of  voluntary 
acts.  He  also  denies,  that  there  is  any  moral  dif- 
ference between  choosing  God  on  account  of  the 
kind  of  happmess  to  be  obtained  by  the  choice  of 
this  glorious  Being  ;  and  choosing  the  world  on  ac- 
count of  the  kind  of  happiness  to  be  obtained  from 
the  choice  of  this  inferior  object.  And  yet  in  each 
case,  as  the  reviewer  shows,  happiness  would  be 
chosen.  The  happiness  to  be  found  in  God,  is  one 
object.  The  happiness  in  the  world,  is  the  other. 
How  wide  the  difference  !  What  is  a  holy  choice, 
if  not  the  former  ?  What  a  sinful  choice,  if  not  the 
latter  ?  So  in  like  manner,  when  he  denies  the 
suspension  of  the  selfish  principle,  he  confounds 
motive,  in  the  sense  of  moral  intention,  with  motive 
in  the  sense  of  constitutional  impulse  ;  and  in  con- 
sequence, makes  the  choice  of  God,  (in  regenera- 


156  CONTROVERSY,      &C. 

''  Motive"  used  in  two  senses. 

tion,)  as  the  supreme  portion  of  the  soul,  either  to 
proceed  from  selfishness,  or  to  take  place  without 
a  cause. 

This  brief  notice  of  Dr.  Tyler's  second  pamphlet, 
ended  the  discussion  in  regard  to  the  means  of  re- 
generation. It  evinced  in  a  short  compass,  and  in  a 
most  lucid  manner,  that  the  main  positions  of  Dr. 
Tyler  in  opposition  lo  Dr.  Taylor,  in  his  review  of 
Spring,  were  founded  in  error  and  confusion,  re- 
specting the  faculties  of  a  moral  agent,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  which  his  moral  actions  are  performed. 


157 
CHAPTER    XV. 

CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.     WOODS. 

Dr.  Woods'  statement  of  Dr.  Taylor's  theory. 

To  preserve  the  regular  succession  of  events  in 
the  history  of  the  controversy,  it  will  be  necessary 
in  this  place  to  notice  a  pamphlet  from  the  pen  of 
the  Rev.  Leonard  Woods,  D.  D.,  on  the  subject  of 
the  divine  permission  of  sin.  The  theories  account- 
ing for  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  moral  uni- 
verse, were  matter  of  discussion  between  Dr.  Tay- 
lor and  Mr.  Harvey,  as  has  been  already  noticed  in 
its  proper  connection.  The  discussion  was  resumed 
in  the  pamphlet  here  referred  to,  which  appeared  in 
1830,  in  the  form  of  Letters  addressed  to  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Didactic  Theology  in  Yale  College. 

Li  these  letters,  Dr.  Woods  lays  down  the  two 
following  propositions,  as  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Taylor : 
^^ firsts  that  sin  is  not  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  not, 
on  the  whole,  preferable  to  holiness  in  its  stead  ; 
and  second^  that  in  a  moral  system  God  could  not 
have  prevented  all  sin,  nor  the  present  degree  of 
it."*    The  latter  of  these  propositions  he  first  con- 

*  Page  24. 

14 


158      CONTROVERSY    WITH     DR.    WOODS. 
Dr.  Woods'  statement  of  Dr.  Taylor's  theory. 

troverts.  He  considers  that  the  phrases  which  de- 
note power,  or  the  want  of  it,  are  used  in  three 
senses :  a  literal  sense,  when  ability  or  inability  to 
do  a  thing  that  is  chosen  or  willed,  is  spoken  of ;  a 
metaphysical  or  moral  sense,  when  disposition  or 
inclination  is  spoken  of,  without  regard  to  power  in 
its  primary  sense ;  and  a  third  signification,  when 
there  is  reference  to  the  nature  of  things,  as  render- 
ing an  act  possible  or  impossible.  Thus  it  is  said 
literally,  God  has  power  to  raise  the  dead ;  77ieta" 
physically,  he  has  not  power  to  do  an  act  of  injus- 
tice J  and  in  the  third  meaning,  he  cannot  cause 
a  part  of  a  thing  to  be  greater  than  the  whole. 

The  proposition  "  that,  in  a  moral  system,  God 
could  not  have  prevented  all  sin,  or  the  present  de- 
gree of  it,"  he  understands  to  assert  a  want  of  pow- 
er in  the  literal  sense  ;  and  thus  he  ascribes  to  Dr. 
Taylor  the  sentiment,  that  sin  has  entered  the  mor- 
al imiverse,  because  God  had  no  kind  of  power,  no 
ability  in  the  literal  and  absolute  sense,  to  prevent 
its  existence.  When  Dr.  Taylor  speaks  of  the  na- 
ture of  things,  he  supposes  him  to  intend  the  nature 
of  man,  as  a  free  agent ;  and  hence  to  affirm  that 
such  is  the  nature  of  free  moral  agency,  that  God 
wanted  power,  literally  and  absolutely,  to  exclude 
sin  from  the  universe,  by  wholly  preventing  the 
perversion  of  moral  agency.* 

*  Letter  II. 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.      159 

God,  able  to  prevent  sin. 

This  sentiment  he  thinks  is  supported  by  no  vaUd 
proof;  and  argues  against  it  substantially  in  the 
following  manner.  If  the  impossibility  of  God's 
preventing  sin  exists  solely  in  the  nature  of  moral 
agency  itself,  it  relates  equally  to  all  moral  agents, 
and  takes  from  God  the  power  of  controlling  any : 
but  if  it  exists  in  the  nature  of  moral  agency  in 
connection  with  the  circumstances  in  which  mo- 
ral agents  are  placed,  God  could  have  ordered  those 
circumstances  in  a  different  manner ;  otherwise 
he  is  not  almighty  in  his  providence.  On  both 
suppositions  his  power  is  limited  in  respect  to  the 
conversion  of  sinners.  Facts,  moreover,  so  far  as 
known,  go  to  prove  that  God  could  pi^event  all  sin. 
Before  the  first  apostacy  in  heaven,  moral  agents 
were  made  holy,  and  kept  in  obedience ;  and  by 
the  same  power  they  might  have  been  preserved 
from  sin,  without  any  influence  derived  from  the 
existence  and  punishment  of  sin.  God  preserved 
some  in  holiness,  while  others  fell ;  he  has  renewed 
sinners  the  most  obstinate  and  rebellious ;  and  the 
consciousness  of  every  one  who  has  been  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  may  be  cited  as  evidence  that 
the  highest  exertion  of  divine  power  does  not  de- 
stroy moral  agency.*  He  also  examines  the  more 
specific  statement,  which  he  ascribes  to  Dr.  Taylor, 

*  Letter  III. 


160     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 

Sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good. 

that  God  could  not  prevent  the  present  degree  of 
sin,  and  that  he  could  not  do  better  than  he  has 
done,  for  any  individual.  This  he  understands  to 
mean,  that  God  could  not  have  prevented  any  indi- 
vidual sirmer  from  sinning ;  nor  have  caused  him 
to  sin  less  than  h"^  has  sinned.  Of  this  he  main- 
tains that  there  is  no  proof  from  fact,  nor  from  the 
nature  or  circumstances  of  sinners ;  but  that  there 
is  proof  to  the  contrary,  from  the  divine  omnipo- 
tence ;  from  the  conversion  of  other  sinners ;  from 
the  fact  that  we  are  required  to  pray  for  their  con- 
version ;  and  from  the  representations  of  scripture, 
that  their  conversion  depends  on  the  will  and  pleas- 
ure of  God. 

What  has  now  been  presented  is,  of  course,  but 
a  general  and  imperfect  view  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  author  of  the  letters  has  argued  against 
the  supposed  theory  of  Dr.  Taylor ;  but  it  will  ex- 
hibit to  the  reader  the  main  positions  of  Dr.  Woods, 
and  furnish  a  correct  outline  of  his  argument. 

He  next  considers  the  theory,  "  that  sin  is  not  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  that  as 
such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  it  is  not  preferable,  on  the 
whole,  to  holiness  in  its  stead."  In  as  much  as  this 
theory  is  the  opposite  of  the  common  one,  which 
his  opponent  has  called  a  groundless  assumption, 
he  represents  it  as  adopted  by  him  and  held  as  his 
belief. 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.      161 

Sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good. 

His  first  object  is  to  shew  that  Dr.  Taylor  has 
contradicted  himself,  in  his  note  to  the  Concio  ad 
Clerum ;  in  the  first  part  denying  and  in  the  second 
affirming,  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good.  The  proof  of  this  rests  on  ques- 
tions in  the  note  like  the  following  :  ^' As  we  know 
of  no  creature  of  God  whose  holiness  is  secured 
without  the  influence  which  results,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  from  the  existence  of  sin  and  its  pun- 
ishment ;  how  can  it  be  proved  from  facts,  that  God 
could  secure  any  of  his  moral  creatures  in  holiness 
without  this  influence  ?  If  God  could  prevent  all 
sin  without  this  influence,  why  has  he  not  done  it  ? 
Who  is  competent  to  foretell  the  consequences  of 
the  least  iota  of  change,  in  the  present  system  of 
influence  to  produce  holiness  ?"  These  questions, 
it  is  asserted  by  Dr.  Woods,  express  the  opinion,  that 
all  the  sin  which  exists,  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  greatest  good.  A  few  remarks  are  then  added 
to  shew,  that  the  fact  of  sin  and  its  punishment  be- 
ing used  as  a  means  of  preventing  other  sin,  does 
not  prove  that  the  latter  could  not  be  prevented  by 
other  means;  and  though  God  will  undoubtedly 
secure  higher  happiness  in  his  moral  kingdom  by 
means  of  moral  evil,  than  could  have  been  secured 
without  it ;  yet  this  does  not  imply  that  he  could 
not  exclude  sin  entirely  from  a  moral  system. 
14* 


162     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 

Objections  against  the  theory  examined. 

Dr.  Woods  next  examines  the  objections  urged 
against  the  common  position  of  the  "orthodox,"  as 
he  styles  them,  "that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good."  These  objections  are  made  on 
the  gromid  that  the  theory  in  question  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  benevolence  and  sincerity  of  God; 
with  his  commands  and  invitations ;  and  with  the 
duty  of  sorrowing  for  sin.  In  answer  to  these,  he 
maintains,  that,  as  the  divine  law  respects  sin  as 
wrong  and  hurtful  in  its  own  nature  and  tendency, 
it  must  be  forbidden  and  punished  ;  that  it  is,  only 
when  so  forbidden  and  punished,  the  means  of 
good ;  that  for  God  to  forbid  what  is  in  itself  evil, 
though  on  the  whole  for  the  best,  implies  no  insin- 
cerity ;  and  that  he  who  commits  sin  is  to  sorrow 
for  it,  as  a  thing  evil  in  itself,  without  regard  to  the 
good  that  may  result  from  it.  Nothing  in  partic- 
ular is  said,  in  regard  to  the  inconsistency  of  the 
theory  with  the  divine  benevolence. 

The  concluding  letter  is  principally  devoted  to  a 
comparison  of  the  practical  influence  of  the  theory 
ascribed  to  Dr.  Taylor,  and  that  of  the  ^^  ortho- 
dox ^^^  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  great- 
est good ;  and  to  suggestions,  counsel,  and  queries, 
for  the  consideration  and  benefit  of  the  opposite 
party  in  the  discussion.  In  the  comparison,  the  lat- 
ter theory  is  represented  as  possessing  great  advan- 
tage, in  respect  to  the  following  particulars.     It  as- 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.     163 

Practical  influence  of  the  theories  in  question  compared. 

cribes  to  God  unlimited  power  in  respect  to  the  ac- 
complishment of  good ;  while  the  former  implies 
that  God  cannot  do  the  good  he  desires  and  chooses  ; 
and  is  thus  an  obvious  limitation  of  his  power.  It 
ascribes  to  God  infinite  and  perfect  blessedness; 
while,  on  the  other,  his  benevolence  fails  of  being 
perfectly  satisfied.  It  represents  the  present  system 
as  the  best  conceivable  by  the  infinite  mind ;  while 
the  other  admits  that  a  system  without  sin,  would 
be  better.  It  gives  to  God  unlimited  dominion; 
while  the  other  limits  his  control  over  moral  beings. 
It  favors  the  happiness  of  the  good  ;  while  the  other 
leaves  them  to  regret  the  evils  of  the  moral  system 
of  God.  It  furnishes  a  ground  of  entire  voluntary 
submission  to  the  government  and  providence  of 
God ;  while  the  other,  in  respect  to  the  evils  of  the 
system,  produces  only  the  submission  of  necessity. 
It  encour2iges  prayer  for  all  things  consistent  with 
infinite  wisdom  and  goodness;  while  the  other 
leads  us  to  feel,  that  we  are  in  danger  of  asking  fa- 
vors which  God  has  not  power  to  bestow.  And 
finally,  it  leads  to  humility  and  entire  dependence 
on  divine  grace  ;  while  the  other  cherishes  a  feel- 
ing of  independence  and  self-sufficiency.  Such  are 
Dr.  Woods'  representations  of  the  comparative  prac- 
tical efiects  of  the  two  theories.  Next,  come  the 
suggestions,  and  counsel,  and  queries,  with  which 
the  letter  is  concluded.     It  is  suggested  that  there 


164     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 
Grounds  of  alarm  suggested. — Questions  proposed  to  Dr.  Taylor. 

is  ground  for  serious  disquietude  and  alarm,  in  re- 
lation to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  professor  to  whom 
the  letters  are  addressed.  It  is  intimated  that,  on 
the  subject  of  moral  agency,  free  will,  depravity,  di- 
vine influence,  &c.,  he  agrees  with  Arminians  and 
Pelagians ;  on  several  controverted  subjects  holds 
the  opinions  of  Unitarians  ;  and  in  regard  to  human 
dependence,  the  divine  power,  and  the  existence  of 
moral  evil,  adopts  the  language  of  Rousseau  and  the 
French  infidels.  The  New  Haven  professor  is  then 
counseled  not  to  shew  excitement,  in  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  is  treated  by  his  opponents ; 
to  aim  at  great  plainness  and  perspicuity  in  his 
writings ;  to  exhibit  perfect  fairness  and  impar- 
tiality in  stating  his  agreement  with  Calvinistic  wri- 
ters ;  and  to  avoid  protracted  discussion,  by  bring- 
ing the  whole  of  his  sentiments  out  in  one  pam- 
phlet under  his  own  name  !  Finally,  sixteen  ques- 
tions are  propounded  to  him ;  in  regard  to  his  belief 
respecting  the  theories  in  question,  the  nature  of 
things,  of  moral  agency,  of  divine  influence,  and  of 
the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees;  in  regard  to  his 
agreement  with  the  Pelagians  respecting  the  natu- 
ral state  of  man,  free  will,  and  conversion ;  and 
with  Edwards  respecting  moral  agency ;  and  in  re- 
gard to  various  other  topics  more  or  less  connected 
with  the  main  points  of  controversy. 


CONTROVERSY 

Wl 

TH 

DR. 

WOODS.    165 

Review  of  Dr. 

W. 

's  letters  - 

-Dr 

.  W. 

mistakes  Dr. 

T. 

's  position. 

These  letters  were  reviewed  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  for  September,  1830,  in  an  article  ap- 
pended to  the  review  of  Bellamy  on  the  divine  per- 
mission of  sin.  This  part  of  the  article  is  supposed 
to  have  been  written  by  Dr.  Taylor.  The  review, 
in  the  first  place,  shews  that  Dr.  Woods'  statement 
of  the  question  at  issue  is  palpably  incorrect.  He 
has  changed  the  fundamental  position  on  which  the 
whole  discussion  turns,  into  another  and  different 
one,  which  was  never  maintained  by  Dr.  Taylor. 
His  position  was  that  the  two  eissumptions,  first, 
that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good, 
and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  preferable,  on  the 
whole,  to  hohness  in  its  stead ;  and  secondly^  that 
God  could,  in  a  moral  system,  have  prevented  all 
sin,  or  at  least  the  present  degree  of  sin,  are  ground- 
less assumptions.  Instead  of  meeting  this  position 
with  proof,  to  shew  that  they  are  not  groundless 
assumptions.  Dr.  Woods  makes  him  to  hold,  not 
only  that  sin  is  not  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  and  so  far  as  it  exists  is  not  prefer- 
able to  holiness  in  its  stead ;  but  that  God  could 
not,  in  a  moral  system,  have  prevented  all  sin,  nor 
the  present  degree  of  sin;  which  things  he  had 
never  affirmed ;  but  only  maintained  that  the  above 
assumptions  cannot  be  proved. 

The  reviewer  next  shews  that  Dr.  Woods  has, 
in  the  fullest  terms,  conceded  the  great  principle 


166     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS* 
Inconsistencies  of  Dr.  Woods'  scheme. 

maintained  by  his  opponents  ;  viz.  that  no  man  can 
shew  the  theory,  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good,  to  be  true.  This  Dr.  Woods  has 
done  by  affirming,  that  man  cannot  know,  and  that 
God  only  knows,  the  reasons  for  the  permission  of 
sin.  Dr.  Taylor  rephes,  then  Dr.  Woods  does  not 
know  them.  Dr.  Woods  affirms  that  all  the  an- 
swer which  the  case  admits,  is  '  because  it  seemed 
good 'to  God  not  to  prevent  sin.'  Why  then  does 
Dr.  Woods  assign  a  further  reason,  viz.  that  sin  is 
the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good?  Dr. 
Woods  adopts  the  very  statement  of  those  whom 
he  opposes,  when  he  asks,  might  not  God  actually 
prefer  and  fix  upon  the  present  method  of  adminis- 
tration,  which,  though  it  would  not  entirely  ex- 
clude evil,  would  ultimately  raise  his  kingdom  to 
a  higher  degree  of  holiness  and  happiness,  than  any 
other  ?  He  thus  asserts,  not  that  sin,  but  that  the 
present  system  may  be  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good — the  very  position  of  Dr.  Taylor. 

The  reviewer  next  points  out  some  inconsisten- 
cies in  the  scheme  maintained  in  the  letters  of  Dr. 
Woods.  One  is,  that  God  prefers  holiness  to  sin,  in 
itself  considered,  and  at  the  same  time  prefers  sin 
to  holiness,  all  things  considej^ed;  it  being  a  con- 
tradiction, to  suppose  any  being  to  choose  opposites 
at  the  same  time.  Another  is,  that  sin,  in  its  na- 
ture and  tendency,  is  evil ;  but  when  prohibited 


CONTROVERSY    WITH     DR.    WOODS.     167 
Evasions  of  the  points  in  debate. 

and  punished,  possesses  a  salutary  influence.  This 
is  the  same  as  saying  that  a  thing,  in  its  nature 
wholly  evil,  is  good  as  a  means  of  producing  good. 
He  then  notices  the  manner  in  which  several  things 
are  confounded  in  the  letters.  That  God  has  not 
prevented  sin,  because  it  seemed  good  in  his  sight 
not  to  prevent  it,  is  called  a  theory  instead  of  a 
doctrine  ;  and  is  improperly  confounded  with  the 
theory,  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  great- 
est good.  Hence  the  act  of  God  in  permitting  sin, 
which  is  a  good  act,  is  confounded  with  the  act  of 
man  in  sinning,  which  is  evil.  The  overruling  of 
a  thing  which  is  evil  for  good,  is  confounded  with 
the  thing  itself,  as  a  necessary  means  of  good.  Thus 
the  sin  of  the  crucifiers  of  our  Savior  is  represented 
as  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  when, 
in  fact,  the  overruling  of  it  was  the  means  of  good, 
and  shows,  that  sin  is  not  the  means  of  good.  To 
say,  that  that  which  is  overruled  and  counteracted 
in  all  its  tendencies  is  the  necessary  means  of  good, 
is  a  contradiction.  What  may  be  a  necessary  means, 
on  the  part  of  God,  of  preventing  more  sin,  also  is 
confounded  with  what  may  in  no  degree  be  ne- 
cessary, on  the  part  of  his  subjects.  The  present 
amount  of  sin  with  its  punishment,  for  example, 
may  be  necessary,  so  far  as  God  is  concerned,  for 
the  prevention  of  greater  evil ;  but  by  no  means  ne- 
cessary, on  the  part  of  moral  beings,  who  are  able 
to  do  their  duty  without  it. 


168     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 
Evasions  of  the  points  in  debate  noticed. 

The  reviewer  then  proceeds  to  notice  some  of  the 
evasions  of  the  points  in  debate,  with  which  the 
letters  abound.  An  illustration,  introduced  by  Dr. 
Taylor  to  shew  that  God  may  regard  holiness  as 
preferable  to  sin  in  its  stead,  and  yet  decree  the  ex- 
istence of  sin  as  incidental,  in  respect  to  divine 
prevention,  to  the  best  system,  is  treated  by  Dr. 
Woods  as  if  designed  to  shew  that  God  has  no  more 
-power  over  the  minds  of  men,  than  a  father  has 
over  the  minds  of  his  children.  When  it  is  as- 
serted by  Dr.  Taylor  that  the  nature  of  moral 
agency  is  such,  that  it  may  he  true,  that  God  can- 
not prevent  all  sin  under  a  moral  system  ;  the  po- 
sition is  met  by  Dr.  Woods,  as  if  it  were  main- 
tained, that  God  cannot  prevent  sin  in  any  instance 
in  which  moral  agency  exists.  When  it  is  said 
that  it  may  he  true,  that  free  agents,  who  can  sin, 
will  sin,  notwithstanding  all  preventing  influences ; 
it  is  represented  as  a  denial  that  God  can  do  what 
he  pleases.  When  the  question  is,  who  can  prove 
that  the  requisite  intervention  of  God  for  the  pre- 
vention of  any  past  sin,  would  not  result  in  a  vast 
increase  of  sin  in  the  universe ;  it  is  met  as  though 
it  were,  who  can  prove  that  it  would  ?  When  it  is 
inquired,  whether  they  who  maintain  that  God 
could  have  secured  universal  holiness,  but  would 
not,  do  not  limit  the  goodness  of  God ;  it  is  an- 
swered by  the  question,  how  does  it  limit  the  good- 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.      169 

Fallacy  of  Dr.  Woods'  reasoning  exposed. 

ness  of  God  to  say  that  he  governs  his  conduct  by 
the  highest  reasons,  and  refrains  from  doing  what 
he  sees  to  be  on  the  whole  best  not  to  do ;  while 
the  real  point  is,  are  these  the  highest  reasons ;  is 
it  on  the  whole  for  the  best,  that  sin  should  not 
be  prevented,  if  possible,  by  holiness  in  its  stead  ? 
These,  with  other  evasions,  are  shown  to  make  a 
large  part  of  the  apparent  arguments  of  the  letters, 
and  to  be  entirely  irrelevant  to  the  subject  in  de- 
bate. 

The  next  step  of  the  reviewer  is  to  exhibit  the 
fallacy  of  the  reasoning  which  these  letters  con- 
tain. The  arguments  intended  to  support  the  po- 
sition, that  God  could  have  prevented  all  sin  in  a 
moral  system,  are  wholly  inconclusive.  That  God 
is  omnipotent  is  no  proof:  for  there  may  be  an 
impossibility  involving  a  self-contradiction  ;  and  so 
the  thing  to  be  accomplished  may  not  lie  within 
the  power  of  omnipotence  :  that  God  has  a  per- 
fect control  over  all  the  circumstances  of  his  crea- 
tures, and  therefore  could  have  prevented  all  sin  in  a 
moral  system,  is  only  a  begging  of  the  question ;  the 
fact  that  God  has  converted  sinners  in  the  most  unfa- 
vorable external  circumstances,  and  those  who  were 
the  most  obstinate  and  rebellious,  does  not  shew, 
and  even  the  conversion  of  the  whole  human  race 
would  not  shew,  that  God  could  prevent  all  sin  in 
a  moral  universe.  The  point  to  be  proved  is,  that 
15 


170     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 
The  two  theories  equally  limit  the  power  of  God. 

God  could  have  kept  all  sin,  or  the  present  degree 
of  sin,  out  of  a  universal  moral  system.  This,  the 
very  thing  which  Dr.  Woods  was  bound  to  prove, 
so  far  from  being  proved  is  virtually  denied  by  Dr. 
Woods.  He  says,  "  that  from  the  moment  in  which 
God  created  a  moral  world,  he  has  been  exerting 
his  influence  upon  it,  in  every  conceivable  manner, 
and  in  the  highest  possible  degree  ;"  and  what  more 
could  God  have  done  ?  The  reviewer  then  shews, 
that  the  reasoning  which  is  designed  to  prove  the 
unlimited  power  of  God,  in  respect  to  the  preven- 
tion of  sin  in  a  moral  universe,  owes  its  entire  plau- 
sibility, to  the  denial  of  the  moral  agency  of  crea- 
tures. It  is  based  on  the  false  position,  that,  to  moral 
agents  belongs  no  power  of  resisting  moral  influen- 
ces, any  more  than  to  inert  matter,  of  resisting  om- 
nipotence ;  and  thus  denies  to  them,  the  essential 
quality  of  moral  agency ;  power  of  choice  in  all 
conceivable  circumstances.  He  also  shews  that 
the  scheme  advocated  by  Dr.  Woods,  is  a  limitation 
of  the  pov:er  of  God,  in  substantially  the  same 
manner,  as  that  which  he  opposes.  The  latter 
scheme  supposes  that  God  may  not  be  able  to  se- 
cure the  greatest  good  in  his  power  to  secure,  with- 
out free  agents,  some  of  whom  will  sin  ;  the  scheme 
of  Dr.  Woods  asserts,  that  God  cannot  secure  the 
greatest  good,  without  sin  as  the  necessary  means 
of  the  result.     On  both  schemes,  there  is  then  an 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.      171 
Invidious  remarks  complained  of. — The  argument  summed  up. 


impossibility  ;  on  one,  the  impossibility  results  from 
the  nature  of  moral  agency;  on  the  other,  from 
the  nature  of  sin. 

The  reviewer  finally  comments  on  the  personal 
and  invidious  remarks  with  which  the  letters  abound. 
They  hold  up  to  view  two  parties,  the  one  dignified 
with  the  name  "  Orthodox,"  and  the  other  their 
opponents  who  are  identified  to  an  indefinite  extent 
with  Arminians,  and  Uniteirians,  and  Pelagians,  and 
French  infidels.  A  great  number  of  questions  are 
proposed,  which  necessarily  convey  the  insinuation, 
that  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  friends  are  radically  un- 
sound in  the  faith,  and  guilty  of  dishonesty  and  de- 
ception. At  the  same  time,  they  are  addressed  to 
Dr.  Taylor,  with  the  shew  of  great  kindness  and 
affection.  These  things  are  complained  of  as  cast- 
ing odium  on  brethren  who  hold  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  gospel ;  and  against  whom  no  spe- 
cific charge  of  a  departure  from  the  orthodox  belief, 
has  ever  been  made. 

This  general  view  of  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Woods, 
and  the  review  of  them  in  the  Christian  Spectator, 
is  designed  to  present  such  a  statement  of  the  points 
at  issue,  and  the  arguments  employed  on  each  side 
in  their  support,  as  will  prevent  the  necessity  of  en- 
tering largely  into  the  subject  hereafter.  The  sub- 
stance of  what  has  here  been  given  may  be  present- 
ed in  few  words.     Dr.  Taylor  intimated  in  the  note 


172     CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS. 
What  Dr.  T.  maintained. — How  Dr.  W.  met  hia  positions. 

to  his  Concio  ad  Clerum,  that  two  very  common 
assumptions  respecting  the  existence  of  sin  are 
groundless.  These  assumptions  are,  jirst^  that  sin 
is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  as 
such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  preferable  on  the  whole 
to  holiness  in  its  stead ;  and  secondly^  that  God 
could  in  a  moral  system  have  prevented  all  sin,  or 
at  least  the  present  degree  of  sin.  By  calling  these 
"groundless  assumptions,"  Dr.  Taylor  intended  that 
they  were  entirely  without  proof;  and  he  left  it  for 
those  by  whom  they  were  adopted,  to  support  them, 
if  they  were  disposed,  and  if  they  could.  After 
thus  setting  aside  these  theories  of  the  permis- 
sion of  sin,  he  suggested  another  as  a  possible  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty.  It  is  this :  God  may  prefer 
holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter 
takes  place.  At  the  same  time,  he  may  prefer  the 
existence  of  sin,  to  the  non-existence  of  the  best 
system  possible  to  him.  In  choosing,  therefore,  a 
moral  system,  he  may  have  purposed  the  existence 
of  sin  as  unavoidably  incidental  to  it,  so  far  as  his 
power  of  prevention  is  concerned,  if  he  adopted  the 
system.  This  supposition  resolved  the  difficulty 
into  the  nature  of  a  moral  system,  in  which  agents 
are  to  act  freely  under  a  moral  government.  Dr. 
Woods  entirely  misunderstood  and  misrepresented 
the  positions  of  Dr.  Taylor.  He  attributed  to  him 
the  theory  that  God  had  no  power  to  control  moral 


CONTROVERSY     WITH     DR.    WOODS.      173 
Failure  of  Dr.  Woods'  argument. 

agents,  so  as  to  prevent  their  sinning,  even  though 
he  chose  to  do  it.  The  whole  of  his  reasoning  on 
the  subject,  therefore,  fell  to  the  ground.  To  have 
accomplished  any  thing,  he  must  first  have  shewn, 
that  what  Dr.  Taylor  assumed  as  a  possible  solu- 
tion of  the  diificulty  in  question,  could  not  he  tjme. 
He  must  have  shewn,  that  the  reason  of  the  exist- 
ence of  sin,  is  7iot  that  God  could  not  keep  out  all 
sin  from  a  moral  universe ;  in  other  words,  that 
God  could  create  and  govern  through  eternity,  a 
moral  universe,  without  permitting  sin.  This  Dr. 
Woods  could  not  do.  He  was  equally  unsuccess- 
ful, it  is  believed,  in  his  attempt  to  support  the  the- 
ory, that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good.  In  the  explanations  which  he  made,  he 
abandoned  the  theory  itself,  and  sometimes  advo- 
cated the  one  suggested  by  Dr.  Taylor,  that  sin,  in 
respect  to  divine  prevention,  is  incidental  to  the  best 
system  possible  to  God. 

No  one,  it  is  believed,  who  understands  the  whole 
controversy  on  this  subject,  can  fail  to  see  that  these 
Letters  of  Dr.  Woods,  so  far  as  it  regards  the  real 
question  in  debate,  left  it  where  they  found  it. 
They  established  no  important  point,  and  over- 
threw no  position  maintained  by  Dr.  Taylor. 
15* 


174 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SECOND    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN     DR.    TAY- 
LOR    AND     DR.    TYLER. 

Dr.  Taylor's  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes, 

It  now  becomes  necessary,  in  pursuing  this  his- 
tory, to  notice  another  branch  of  the  controversy, 
as  it  was  renewed  by  Dr.  Tyler.  In  Jan.  1832, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawes,  of  Hartford,  addressed  a  letter 
to  Dr.  Taylor,  requesting  a  full  statement  of  his 
views  on  some  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel. Dr.  Taylor's  reply  appeared  in  several  news- 
papers and  periodicals ;  and  was  also  published  in  a 
pamphlet  form.  The  following  extracts  will  ex- 
hibit the  system  of  doctrine  which  he  holds. 

^'  I  readily  comply  with  your  request,  and  submit 
to  your  disposal  the  following  statement  of  my  be- 
lief on  some  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
I  believe, 

''  1.  That  there  are  three  persons  in  one  God, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

<'  2.  That  the  eternal  purposes  of  God  extended 
to  all  actual  events,  sin  not  excepted ;  or,  that  God 
foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  so  exe- 
cutes these  purposes  as  to  leave  the  free  moral 
agency  of  man  unimpaired. 


SECOND    DISCUSSION,    &c.  175 

Dr.  Taylor's  creed. 

"3.  That  all  mankind,  in  consequence  of  the 
fall  of  Adain,  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  and  are 
by  nature  totally  depraved ;  in  other  words,  that  all 
men,  from  the  commencement  of  moral  agency  do, 
without  the  interposition  of  divine  grace,  sin,  and 
only  sin,  in  all  their  moral  conduct. 

"4.  That  an  atonement  for  sin  has  been  made 
for  all  mankind  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  that  this 
atonement  was  necessary  to  magnify  the  law,  and 
to  vindicate  and  unfold  the  justice  of  God  in  the 
pardon  of  sin ;  and  that  the  sinner  who  believes  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  freely  justified  on  the 
ground  of  his  atoning  sacrifice,  and  on  that  ground 
alone. 

"  5.  That  the  change  in  regeneration  is  a  moral 
change,  consisting  in  a  new  holy  disposition,  or  gov- 
erning purpose  of  the  heart,  as  a  permanent  princi- 
ple of  action ;  in  which  change  the  sinner  transfers 
the  supreme  affection  of  his  heart  from  all  inferior 
objects  to  the  living  God,  chooses  him  as  the  por- 
tion of  his  soul,  and  his  service  and  glory  as  his  su- 
preme good ;  and  thus  in  respect  to  moral  charac- 
ter, becomes  a  neio  r)ian. 

"  6.  That  this  moral  change  is  never  produced  in 
the  human  heart  by  moral  suasion^  i.  e.  by  mere 
influence  of  truth  and  motives,  as  the  Pelagians  af- 
firm ;  but  is  produced  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  operating  on  the  mind  through  the  truth, 


176       SECOND    DISCUSSION   BETWEEN 
Dr.  Taylor's  creed. 

and  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  nature  of  moral 
action,  and  laws  of  moral  agency. 

"  7.  That  all  men,  (in  the  words  of  the  article  of 
your  church,)  may  accept  the  offers  of  salvation 
freely  made  to  them  in  the  gospel,  but  that  no  one 
will  do  this,  except  he  be  drawn  by  the  Father. 

"  8.  That  the  necessity  of  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration,  results  solely  from  the 
voluntary  perverseness  of  the  sinner's  heart,  or  dis- 
inclination to  serve  God,  which,  while  it  leaves  him 
a  complete  moral  agent,  and  without  excuse  for 
neglecting  his  duty,  suspends  his  actual  salvation 
on  the  sovereign  will  of  God. 

"  9.  That  the  renewing  grace  of  God  is  special^ 
(in  distinction  from  that  which  is  common,  and  re- 
sisted by  the  sinful  mind,)  inasmuch  as  it  is  that 
which  is  designed  to  secure,  and  does  infallibly  se- 
cure, the  conversion  of  the  sinner. 

*'  10.  That  all  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  are  elected  or  chosen  of  God  from  eternity, 
that  they  should  be  holy  ;  not  on  account  of  fore- 
seen faith  or  good  works,  but  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  will. 

''  11.  That  all  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  will,  through  his  continued  influence,  perse- 
vere in  holiness  to  the  end,  and  obtain  eternal  life. 

"  Such  is  my  faith  in  respect  to  some  of  the  lead- 
ing doctrines  of  the  gospel. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLEB.  177 

Dr.  Taylor's  explanations. 

"  These  doctrines  I  preach ;  these  I  teach  in  the 
Theological  department  of  this  Seminary ;  these  I 
have  repeatedly  published  to  the  world.  With  what 
truth  or  justice  any  regard  me  as  a  '  teacher  of  The- 
ology introducing  heresy  into  our  churches,'  the 
candid  can  judge." 

In  respect  to  comparatively  minor  points,  and 
philosophical  theories,  and  modes  of  defending  the 
Calvinistic  system  of  doctrine,  about  which  there 
has  always  been  a  diversity  of  opinion  and  freedom 
of  discussion  simong  Calvinists,  Dr.  Taylor  then 
briefly  states,  in  the  following  manner,  what  he 
does,  and  what  he  does  not  believe. 

''  I  do  not  believe  that  the  posterity  of  Adam 
are,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  language,  guilty  of 
his  sin ;  or  that  the  ill-desert  of  that  sin  is  truly 
theirs ;  or  that  they  are  punished  for  that  sin.  But 
I  do  believe,  that  by  the  wise  and  holy  constitu- 
tion of  God,  all  mankind  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  become  sinners  by  their  own  act. 

'•I  do  not  believe  that  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  which  God  creates,  is  itself  sinful ;  or  that 
God  punishes  men  for  the  nature  which  He  creates ; 
or  that  sin  pertains  to  any  thing  in  the  mind  which 
precedes  all  conscious  mental  exercise  or  action, 
and  which  is  neither  a  matter  of  consciousness  nor 
of  knowledge.  But  I  do  beheve  that  sin  univer- 
sally is  no  other  than  selfishness,  or  a  preference  of 


178       SECOND     DISCUSSION     BETWEEN 
Dr.  Taylor's  explanations. 

one's  self  to  all  others — of  some  inferior  good  to 
God ;  that  this  free  voluntary  preference  is  a  per- 
manent principle  of  action  in  all  the  unconverted  ; 
and  that  this  is  sin,  and  all  that  in  the  scriptures  is 
meant  by  sin.  I  also  believe,  that  such  is  the  na- 
ture of  the  human  mind,  that  it  becomes  the  occa- 
sion of  universal  sin  in  men  in  all  the  appropriate 
circumstances  of  their  existence ;  and  that  there- 
fore they  are  truly  and  properly  said  to  be  sinners 
by  nature. 

*'  I  do  not  believe  that  sin  can  be  proved  to  be 
the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  aind  that 
as  such,  God  prefers  it  on  the  whole  to  holiness  in 
its  stead ;  or  that  a  God  of  sincerity  and  truth  pun- 
ishes his  creatures  for  doing  that  which  he  on  the 
whole  prefers  they  should  do,  and  which  as  the 
means  of  good,  is  the  best  thing  they  can  do.  But 
I  do  believe,  that  holiness  as  the  means  of  good, 
may  be  better  than  sin ;  that  it  may  be  true  that 
God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin 
in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place,  and 
therefore  sincerely  desires  that  all  men  should  come 
to  repentance,  though  for  wise  and  good  reasons  he 
permits^  or  does  not  prevent  the  existence  of  sin. 
I  do  not  believe  that  it  can  be  proved,  that  an  om- 
nipotent God  would  be  unable  to  secure  more  good 
by  means  of  the  perfect  and  universal  obedience  of 
his  creatures,  if  they  would  render  it,  than  by  means 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  179 

Dr.  Taylor's  explanations. 

of  their  sin.  But  I  do  believe  that  it  may  involve 
a  dishonorable  limitation  of  his  power  to  suppose 
that  he  could  not  do  it. 

''  I  do  not  beheve  that  the  grace  of  God  can  be 
truly  said  to  be  irresistible,  in  the  primary  import 
of  this  term.  But  I  do  beheve,  that  in  all  cases,  it 
may  be  resisted  by  man  as  a  free  moral  agent,  and 
that  when  it  becomes  effectual  to  conversion,  as  it 
infalUbly  does  in  the  case  of  all  the  elect,  it  is  unre- 
sisted. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  the  grace  of  God  is  ne- 
cessary, as  Arminians  and  some  others  maintain,  to 
render  man  an  accountable  agent,  and  responsible 
for  rejecting  the  offers  of  eternal  life.  But  I  do  be- 
lieve, that  man  would  be  such  an  agent  and  thus 
responsible,  were  no  such  grace  afforded,  and  that 
otherwise,  '  grace  would  be  no  more  grace.' 

''  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  necessary  that  the 
sinner  in  using  the  means  of  regeneration,  should 
commit  sin  in  order  to  become  holy.  But  I  do  be- 
lieve, that  as  a  moral  agent  he  is  qualified  so  to  use 
the  means,  i.  e.  the  truth  of  God  when  present  to 
his  mind,  as  to  become  holy  at  once ;  that  he  is 
authorized  to  beheve,  that  through  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  this  may  be  done  ;  and  that  except  in 
so  doing,  he  cannot  be  truly  and  properly  said  to 
use  the  means  of  regeneration. 


180       SECOND     DISCUSSION     BETWEEN 
Discussion  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims. 

"  I  do  not  believe  that  we  are  authorized  to  as- 
sure the  sinner,  as  Arminians  do,  and  some  others 
also,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  always  ready  to  con- 
vert him.  But  I  do  believe,  that  we  are  authorized 
to  assure  any  sinner,  that  it  may  he  true^  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  now  ready  to  convert  him, — '  that 
God  peradventure  will  now  give  repentance,'  and 
that  thus,  in  view  of  the  possible  intervention  of 
divine  influence,  we  remove  what  would  otherwise 
be  a  ground  of  fatal  discouragement  to  the  sinner, 
when  we  exhort  him  to  immediate  repentance." 

The  letter  closes  with  an  expression  of  his  views 
respecting  the  mode  of  exhibiting  the  sinner's  obli- 
gation, in  connection  with  his  dependence  on  the 
sovereign  grace  of  God,  resulting  from  his  volun- 
tary perverseness  in  sin. 

In  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  for  June,  1832,  an 
article  under  the  signature  of  Dr.  Tyler  was  pub- 
lished, containing  remarks  on  Dr.  Taylor's  letter  to 
Dr.  Hawes.  To  this  Dr.  Taylor  replied  in  the  num- 
ber for  August.  This  was  answered  by  Dr.  Tyler, 
who  was  again  replied  to  by  Dr.  Taylor.  The  dis- 
cussion in  this  publication,  after  a  year's  continu- 
ance, was  at  length  concluded  with  a  letter  to  the 
editor  from  Dr.  Tyler.  This  letter,  with  remarks 
on  two  articles  in  the  Christian  Spectator  on  the 
same  subject,  afterwards  appeared  in  the  form  of  a 
pamphlet,  with  which  this  part  of  the  controversy 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  181 

The  doctrine  of  decrees  subverted. 


was  finally  terminated.  The  details  of  this  volu- 
minous discussion  will  not  here  be  given.  The 
leading  points,  maintained  in  the  several  articles 
referred  to,  will  simply  be  stated;  and  any  who 
desire  to  pursue  the  subject,  can  easily  consult  for 
themselves  the  original  documents. 

It  is  fully  admitted  by  Dr.  Tyler,  that  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's theological  views  as  embodied  in  the  eleven 
articles  of  his  creed  are  correct ;  but  fears  are  ex- 
pressed that  his  theories,  carried  out  into  their  le- 
gitimate consequences,  may  lead  to  a  renunciation 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Dr. 
Tyler  maintains,  that  these  theories  are  subversive 
of  some  of  the  most  prominent  articles  of  the  creed ; 
particularly  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  of  original 
sin,  of  regeneration,  and  of  election. 

1st.  The  doctrine  of  decrees.  ''If  it  be  true," 
says  Dr.  Tyler,  "  that  God,  all  things  considered, 
prefers  holiness  to  sin  in  all  instances  in  which  the 
latter  takes  place,  it  cannot  be  true,  that  God  has 
purposed  or  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 
The  two  statements  involve  a  contradiction.  Again, 
if  it  be  true  that  sin  cannot  be  proved  to  be  the  ne- 
cessary means  of  the  greatest  good,  in  the  sense  of 
being  on  the  whole  for  the  best,  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  God  has  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 
Again,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  God,  for  wise  and 
good  reasons,  permits  or  does  not  prevent  the  exist- 
16 


182        SECOND    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN 
The  charge  denied  and  refuted. 

ence  of  sin,  and  yet  all  things  considered  prefers 
holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter 
takes  place.  And  again,  it  involves  a  contradiction 
to  say,  that  God  could  not  prevent  all  sin,  or  the 
present  degree  of  sin,  in  a  moral  system,  and  yet 
that  he  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."* 

To  this  it  is  in  substance  replied,  by  Dr.  Taylor, 
that  no  theory  which  is  either  novel  or  anti-orthodox 
has  been  propounded,  and  that  no  theory  whatever 
has  been  advanced  as  assigning  the  actual  reason 
of  the  decree  of  God  respecting  the  existence  of 
sin.  All  that  has  been  asserted  by  him  is,  that  the 
theory  which  affirms  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good,  cannot  be  proved  to  be  true, 
and  that  there  are  unanswerable  objections  against 
it ;  and  that  there  may  be  another  reason  why  the 
existence  of  sin  is  purposed,  viz.  that  in  respect  to 
the  divine  prevention,  sin  may  be  incidental  to  the 
best  possible  system.  There  is  no  contradiction  in 
saying,  that  God  prefers  that  all  his  moral  subjects, 
in  every  instance  in  which  they  commit  sin,  should 
do  their  duty  and  be  holy,  and  yet  by  giving  exist- 
ence to  that  system,  in  which  they  as  moral  agents 
transgress  his  law,  should  purpose  the  existence  of 
sin,  in  preference  to  the  non-existence  of  that  system 
which  is  the  best  possible  to  him.     Again,  there  is 

*  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  Vol.  V,  pp.  327,  328,  509—519. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  183 

The  doctrine  of  original  sin  subverted. 

no  inconsistency  in  maintaining  that  sin  may  not  be, 
on  the  whole,  for  the  best,  as  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good ;  and  yet  maintaining  that  God 
foreordained  or  purposed  all  events,  the  existence  of 
sin  not  excepted.  For,  holiness  may  on  the  whole 
be  for  the  best,  and  sin,  so  far  from  being  the  neces- 
sary means  of  the  greatest  good,  be  only  evil  and 
destructive  of  good ;  and  its  existence  be  purposed, 
not  for  its  own  sake,  but  in  preference  to  a  greater 
evil,  viz.  the  non-existence  of  the  present  system. 
Again,  all  things  considered,  God  may  prefer  that 
his  morsd  subjects  should  in  every  instance  do  their 
duty,  and  thus  prefer  holiness  to  sin  in  every  in- 
stance ;  and  yet,  for  the  wise  and  good  reason  that 
the  existence  of  sin  is  a  less  evil  than  the  necessary 
intervention  on  his  part  to  prevent  it,  permit  its  ex- 
istence. And  as  to  the  fourth  specification,  it  has 
never  been  affirmed  that  God  carmot  prevent  sin  in 
a  moral  system ;  and  that  this  sentiment  should  be 
still  imputed,  after  having  been  unifonnly  disclaim- 
ed, is  just  cause  of  complaint  and  grief* 

2d.  Dr.  Tyler  maintains,  that  Dr.  Taylor  by  his 
theories  subverts  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Tyler,  this  doctrine  embraces  two 
facts :  first  J  that  mankind  are  sinners  by  nature  ; 
and  second,  that  this  nature  is  the  result  of  Adam's 

*  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  Vol.  V,  pp.  425,  &c.  669,  &c. 


184       SECOND     DISCUSSION     BETWEEN 
Dr.  Taylor's  reply  to  the  charge. 

sin  and  in  consequence  of  the  connection  between 
him  and  his  posterity.  To  be  sinners  by  nature,  is 
to  possess  some  hereditary  propensity  to  evil ;  a 
native  bias  or  tendency  to  sin  propagated  from  pa- 
rent to  child.  But  Dr.  Taylor,  he  says,  maintains, 
that  the  moral  nature  of  all  accountable  beings  is 
alike,  and  the  very  nature  which  God  has  given 
them ;  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  have  the  same 
nature  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created,  and 
that  which  the  man  Christ  Jesus  possessed ;  and 
that  the  fact  of  their  sinning  is  therefore  owing, 
not  to  the  constitutional  propensities,  or  a  nature 
which  they  possess  different  from  what  they  would 
have  possessed  if  born  of  holy  parents,  but  entirely 
to  the  circumstances  of  temptation  in  which  they 
commence  their  moral  existence.* 

To  this  it  is  replied  by  Dr.  Taylor,  that  if  by 
nature  is  meant  that  constitution  of  being  by  which 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  and  Adam  and  his  posterity 
are  truly  and  properly  human  beings,  then  they 
possess  the  same  nature  in  kind,  though  not  in  de- 
gree. The  constitutional  propensities  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam  may  be  much  more  susceptible 
to  excitement  by  worldly  good,  in  consequence  of 
his  sin  and  their  connection  with  him,  than  those 
of  Adam  in  a  state  of  innocency  or  of  the  child 

*  pp.  329,  330,  545,  &c. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  185 

Dr.  Taylor's  reply  to  the  charge. 

Jesus ;  and  their  greater  strength  constituting  a  dif- 
ference in  degree^  though  not  in  kind^  may  be  the 
cause  of  their  universally  becoming  sinners.  The 
proper  idea  of  nature,  is  that  which  constitutes  a 
thing  what  it  is  in  the  appropriate  circumstances  of 
its  existence  ;  and  it  is  this  nature  of  man  in  the 
appropriate  circumstances  of  his  existence,  and  not 
the  circumstances  themselves,  to  which  the  sinful- 
ness of  mankind  is  to  be  traced.* 

In  regard  to  what  is  called  a  hereditary  propen- 
sity to  evil,  a  native  bias  or  tendency  to  sin  propa- 
gated from  parent  to  child,  it  must  be  supposed  to 
be  one  of  three  things :  either  a  constitutional  pro- 
pensity for  sin  as  sin,  like  the  propensity  for  food 
or  drink ;  or  a  sinful  choice  or  preference  of  the 
mind ;  or  a  constitutional  propensity  for  the  natural 
good  to  be  obtained  by  sinning.  If  the  first,  then 
we  are  conscious  of  no  such  propensity  to  sin,  nor 
is  there  any  good  in  sin  as  sin,  which  can  be  the 
object  of  propensity.  If  the  second,  then  it  being 
a  wrong  act  of  the  will,  it  is  itself  sin  ;  and  to  as- 
sign such  a  propensity  as  the  cause  of  all  sin,  in- 
volves not  only  the  absurdity  of  propagated  acts  of 
transgression,  but  also  the  absurdity  of  making  sin 
the  cause  of  all  sin — a  sin  before  the  first  sin.  If 
the  third,  then  Dr.  Taylor  admits  and  asserts  it ; 

*  pp.  428,  429,  &c. 

16* 


186       SECOND     DISCUSSION    BETWEEN 

The  doctrine  of  regeneraiion  subverted. 

i.  e.  he  affirms,  that  all  men  have  a  propensity,  bias, 
or  tendency  to  sin,  which  results  from  their  consti- 
tutional propensities  to  natural  good,  in  all  the  ap- 
propriate circumstances  of  their  being.  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  whether  mankind  are  born  with  a  prch 
pensity  to  sin  ;  but  what  is  this  propensity  ? — is  it  a 
propensity  for  sin  as  sin ;  or  is  it  a  sinful  propensity ; 
or  is  it  a  propensity  for  natural  good,  which  leads  to, 
and  universally  results  in,  sin,  as  soon  as  men  be- 
come moral  beings  ?  While  Dr.  Taylor  has  under- 
stood, and  correctly  understood,  Dr.  Tyler  and  oth- 
ers to  maintain  a  propagated  propensity  to  sin  in  the 
two  first  senses,  he  has  maintained  a  propagated 
propensity  to  sin  in  the  last  sense,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  discussion. 

3d.  Dr.  Tyler  claims  that,  though  Dr.  Taylor's 
creed  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  is 
unobjectionable,  yet  he  has  adopted  theories  which 
tend  to  sap  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine. 

In  proof  of  this,  he  represents  Dr.  Taylor  as  hold- 
ing that  sinners  have  power  to  resist  any  measure 
of  divine  influence,  and  consequently  to  make  it 
impossible  for  God  to  convert  them ;  that  they 
choose  or  prefer  different  objects,  as  their  chief  good, 
according  as  they  estimate  their  relative  value  in 
view  of  the  happiness  to  be  derived  from  them,  and 
consequently,  that  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  ef- 
fect their  conversion,  than  to  convince  them  that 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  187 

Charge  of  subverting  regeneration  refuted. 

they  have  mistaken  the  true  way  of  securing  their 
highest  happiness ;  and  that  they  cease  to  resist 
divine  grace  antecedent  to  regeneration,  and  conse- 
quently, need  no  special  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  their  conversion. 

To  this  Dr.  Taylor  replies,  that,  though  sinners 
as  moral  agents  have  natural  power  to  resist  divine 
influences,  and  therefore  that  the  grace  of  God  in 
their  conversion  is  not  irresistible  in  the  primary 
import  of  the  term,  yet  this  does  not  deny  to  God 
complete  power  over  the  minds  of  sinners,  so  that 
his  grace  may  become  efficacious,  in  producing  their 
voluntary  submission.  Nor,  when  it  is  said  that 
the  sinner  prefers  the  world  to  God  as  his  chief 
good,  according  to  his  estimate  of  the  higher  pres- 
ent happiness  to  be  derived  from  it,  is  any  thing 
more  intended,  than  that  the  will  is  as  the  greatest 
apparent  good.  To  represent  this  preference  as  a 
mere  mistake  of  the  judgment,  so  that  nothing 
more  is  necessary  to  effect  the  conversion  of  a  sin- 
ner than  to  convince  him  that  he  has  mistaken  the 
true  way  of  securing  his  highest  happiness,  is  to 
overlook  the  whole  character  of  the  previous  dis- 
cussion on  this  subject,  and  to  confound  the  state 
or  affection  of  the  mind  in  viewing  a  thing  as  now 
most  agreeable,  with  a  dictate  of  reason,  or  sober 
judgment,  or  decision  of  the  miderstanding. 


188       SECOND     DISCUSSION     BETWEEN 
The  doctrine  of  election  subverted. 

In  respect  to  the  last  specification,  Dr.  Taylor  re- 
plies, that  he  has  never  maintained  that  the  sinner 
ceases  to  resist  divine  grace  before  regeneration  in 
the  popular  import  of  the  term,  but  merely,  in  the 
restricted  sense  of  the  word,  as  denoting  the  act  of 
loving  God,  in  distinction  from  the  mental  acts  that 
precede  it ;  and  then,  only  in  the  order  of  nature 
and  not  of  time,  he  ceases  to  love  the  world  su- 
premely before  his  affections  are  given  to  God ;  or 
in  other  words,  before  he  chooses  God  as  his  por- 
tion. So  far  is  this  representation  from  denying 
the  necessity  of  divine  influences  in  regeneration, 
that  the  selfish  principle  is  never  suspended  ante- 
cedent to  the  choice  of  God,  except  through  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

4th.  Dr.  Tyler  says,  that  in  his  creed.  Dr.  Tay- 
lor has  made  a  full  and  satisfactory  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  election,  but  that  this  statement  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  principles  which  he 
has  adopted. 

It  is  inconsistent  with  his  views  in  respect  to 
God's  preference,  all  things  considered,  of  holiness 
to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes 
place.  For  if  God  prefers,  all  things  considered, 
holiness  to  sin  in  every  instance,  he  will  of  com-se 
do  all  in  his  power  to  make  every  individual  holy. 
Instead  then  of  electing  any  to  life,  he  saves  all 
that  he  can ;  so  that  there  is  no  election.     And  ac- 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  189 

Alledged  inconsistency  on  election  refuted. 

cording  to  the  theory,  that  the  grace  of  God  may  in 
all  cases  be  resisted  by  man  as  a  free  moral  agent, 
there  can  be  no  purpose  to  bring  to  repentance  cer- 
tain individuals,  for  those  individuals  may  resist  his 
grace  and  thus  render  their  conversion  impossible 
in  the  nature  of  things. 

To  this  it  is  replied  by  Dr.  Taylor,  that  the  po- 
sition in  respect  to  God's  preference  of  holiness  to 
sin  above  stated,  is  a  substitute  for  the  one  which 
he  maintains,  viz.  that  God  prefers,  all  things  con- 
sidered, that  all  men  should  become  holy  rather 
than  continue  in  sin  under  the  present  system. 
This  does  not  imply  that  he  does  all  he  can  for  the 
conversion  of  every  sinner,  but  what  is  best  under 
the  present  system  ;  so  that  he  may  prefer  that  only 
a  part  should  be  holy,  rather  than  change  the  sys^ 
tern.  And  the  determining  who  this  part  shall  be, 
is  his  purpose  of  election.  He  says  further,  that 
in  regard  to  the  inconsistency  of  the  doctrine  of 
election,  with  the  natural  possibility  of  a  free  moral 
agent's  resisting  the  grace  of  God  ;  if  there  is  any, 
it  lies  in  the  fact  that  God  cannot  foreknow  the 
actions  of  such  an  agent.  It  is  therefore  an  incon- 
sistency between  moral  agency  and  the  divine  fore- 
knowledge. 

This  general  exhibition  of  the  main  points  of 
discussion,  in  that  part  of  the  controversy  now  con- 
sidered, will  enable  the  reader  to  understand  the 


190        SECOND     DISCUSSION    BETWEEN 
Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  theories. 

real  points  of  difference,  and  the  principal  argu- 
ments by  which  the  different  views  are  supported. 
Before  this  branch  of  the  subject  is  dismissed,  it 
will  be  proper  briefly  to  refer  to  the  two  articles  be- 
fore mentioned,  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  written 
by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  to  Dr.  Tyler's  letter  to  the  Ed- 
itor of  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  with  his  remarks 
on  those  articles. 

The  first  article  in  the  Spectator  contains  a  full 
examination  of  Dr.  Tyler's  theories  respecting  hu- 
man depravity,  and  the  divine  permission  of  sin. 
The  former  theory  is  thus  represented.  The  nature 
of  man  since  the  apostacy  differs  as  really  from  his 
nature  before  that  event,  as  the  nature  of  a  lion 
which  leads  him  to  feed  on  flesh,  differs  from  that 
of  the  ox  which  leads  him  to  feed  on  grass.  Dr. 
Taylor  shews  that  this  theory  is  encumbered  with 
many  difficulties.  Amongst  other  things,  it  ex- 
hibits God  as  the  responsible  author  of  sin ;  ac- 
counts for  all  sin  in  men  by  asserting  a  previous  sin 
as  its  cause ;  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability,  and  of  course  with  the  moral  agency 
of  man ;  makes  regeneration  a  physical  change, 
and  the  exhibition  of  motives  entirely  useless ;  sup- 
ports the  Arminian  doctrines  of  a  self-determining 
power  of  the  will,  and  of  the  necessity  of  grace  to 
restore  moral  agency  to  man. 


DR.    TAYLOR     AND     DR.    TYLER.  191 

Dr.  Tyler's  theory  respecting  the  permission  of  sin  considered. 

The  theory  respecting  the  divine  permission  of 
sin  is  next  considered.  This  theory,  which  is  "  that 
sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good," 
Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  involves  absurdities  and  con- 
tradictions ;  is  inconsistent  with  the  scriptures ; 
represents  the  worst  kind  of  moral  action  as  the 
best ;  and  if  carried  out  into  its  legitimate  conse- 
quences, leads  to  universalism,  to  infidelity j  and  to 
atheism. 

In  his  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims,  Dr.  Tyler  denies  that  he  has  maintained, 
that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good 
in  any  such  sense  as  is  imputed  to  him.  The  po- 
sition which  he  maint£iins  is,  "  that  God  will  so 
overrule  all  the  sin  which  exists,  and  so  counteract 
its  tendencies,  as  to  bring  to  pass  a  greater  amount 
of  good  than  would  have  been  realized,  if  sin  had 
never  existed."  He  believes,  "  that  the  wrath  of 
man  shall  praise  God,  and  that  the  remainder  of 
wrath  he  will  restrain  ;"  that  is,  that  God  will  over- 
rule all  the  sin  that  ever  has  existed  or  that  ever 
will  exist,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  get  glory  to  him- 
self ;  and  that  all  the  sin  which  he  sees  could  not 
be  thus  be  overruled  he  will  restrain  or  prevent. 
He  says  also,  that  they  who  are  represented  as  hold- 
ing that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  maintain  that  the  possible  alternative  pre- 
sented to  the  divine  mind,  being  the  existence  of 


192  SECOND     DISCUSSION,     &C. 

Dr.  Tyler's  explanation  of  his  theories. 

sin  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  non-ex- 
istence of  the  best  system,  God  chose  the  present 
system,  because,  notwithstanding  the  evil  which  it 
contains,  it  is  the  best  system. 

He  also  claims,  that  his  views  on  the  subject  of 
depravity  are  entirely  misrepresented.  When  he 
maintained  that  the  nature  of  man  since  the  fall 
diflfers  as  really  from  his  nature  before  that  event, 
as  the  nature  of  the  lion  differs  from  that  of  the  ox, 
he  did  not  maintain  that  it  differed  in  the  same 
sense,  nor  has  he  undertaken  to  tell  in  what  the 
native,  hereditary  propensity  to  evil,  which  he  at- 
tributes to  mankind,  consists.  Nor  ought  such  a 
construction  to  be  put  upon  his  language,  as  to 
attribute  to  him  the  position  that  man  cannot  sin, 
without  a  constitutional  propensity  to  sin.  He  has 
no  where  denied  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  might 
sin,  without  a  constitutional  propensity  to  sin. 


193 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

DISCUSSION     BETWEEN     DR.    TAYLOR     AND 
DR.    TYLER     CONTINUED. 


Dr.  Taylor's  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Spectator. 

After  the  publication  of  the  last  mentioned  let- 
ter, Dr.  Taylor  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the 
Christian  Spectator,  the  object  of  which  was  "to 
shew,  that,  on  the  basis  of  Dr.  Tyler's  last  state- 
ments and  explanations,  all  controversy  between 
them  might  be  terminated  in  an  entire  agreement  on 
the  chief  points  at  issue."  The  design  of  the  com- 
munication was  conciliatory.  Instead  of  inquiring 
what  Dr.  Tyler  had  maintained,  with  a  view  to  ex- 
pose his  inconsistency  and  shew  a  departure  from  his 
original  ground,  as  might  have  been  done,  Dr.  Tay- 
lor waved  this  mode  of  reply,  and  presented  the 
evidence  of  an  agreement  between  them  which  he 
believed  now  actually  existed.  He  accordingly 
considers  Dr.  Tyler  as  having  removed,  in  his  last 
communication,  every  obstacle  to  an  entire  agree- 
ment of  opinion  between  them,  firsts  in  regard  to 
his  theory  respecting  the  divine  permission  of  sin  ; 
and  secondly,  in  regard  to  human  depravity. 

Respecting  the  permission  of  sin,  Dr.  Tyler  is 
understood  now  to  disclaim  the  sentiment,  that  sin  is 
17 


194    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR 

Agreement  on  the  ground  of  Dr.  Tyler's  last  statements. 

in  any  sense  good  in  its  tendencies,  or  is  in  itself  a 
means  of  good.  He  is  understood  to  reject  the  posi- 
tion that  God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  sin  to 
holiness  in  all  instances  in  which  the  former  takes 
place.  He  says  that  sin  is  an  evil,  and  tends  to  evil 
and  to  evil  only.  He  maintains  that  sin  under  the 
government  of  God,  is  the  means  of  good  simply  as 
an  antecedent^  the  good  itself  being  exclusively  de- 
pendent on  divine  agency.  It  is  only  the  occasion 
of  good  when  overruled  by  God.  He  admits  that 
God  prefers,  all  things  considered,  that  all  men 
should  become  holy  rather  than  continue  in  sin  ww- 
der  the  present  system.  He  rejects  the  inferences 
which  have  been  drawn  from  the  statement  that 
sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good  ; 
such  £is,  that  those  who  die  in  their  sins,  were  cre- 
ated for  the  purpose  of  displaying  the  divine  attri- 
butes, and  by  their  sins  and  sufferings,  of  becoming 
the  means  of  the  highest  happiness  of  others  ;  and 
that  God  could  not  be  satisfied  with  the  perfect  ho- 
liness and  perfect  happiness  of  his  moral  creatures  ; 
but  introduced  sin  into  his  system,  for  the  sake  of 
raising  some  to  a  higher  conceivable  perfection  of 
happiness  by  the  eternal  agonies  of  the  damned. 
He  also  positively  affirms,  that  the  hypothesis 
which  had  been  exhibited  as  the  peculiarity  of 
Dr.  Taylor's  scheme,  viz.  the  possible  alternative 
presented  to  the  divine  mind  may  have  been,  the 


AND     DR.    TYLER     CONTINUED.  195 

Dr.  Tyler's  statements,  a  basis  of  agreement. 


existence  of  sin  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other, 
the  non-existence  of  the  best  system,  is  the  very 
doctrine  which  he  maintains.*  These  considera- 
tions, in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Taylor,  shewed  conclu- 
sively that  he  and  Dr.  Tyler  then  £igreed,  in  all  that 
is  essential  respecting  the  divine  permission  of  sin. 
Dr.  Taylor  also  regarded  aill  ground  of  further 
debate  on  the  subject  of  human  depravity,  as  remo- 
ved by  Dr.  Tyler.  Dr.  Tyler  is  now  understood 
to  deny,  that  there  is  in  the  human  mind  a  constitu- 
tional propensity  to  sin.  He  explicitly  disclaims 
the  opinion,  that  there  is  in  man  a  propensity  to  sin, 
which  leads  him  to  disobey  God  by  the  same  phy- 
sical law,  as  that  by  which  the  lion  is  led  to  feed 
on  fiesh ;  and  says,  he  has  not  undertaken  to  tell  in 
what  the  propensity  to  sin  consists,  nor  does  he 
pretend  to  be  able  to  tell.  He  has  by  no  means 
affirmed,  that  the  change  which  human  nature  has 
undergone  in  consequence  of  the  apostacy,  is  a 
change  in  the  physical  structure  of  the  mind.  Dr. 
Tyler  also  disclaims  the  opinion,  that  the  propen- 
sity to  sin  in  the  human  mind,  is  itself  sinful.  He 
represents  the  imputation  of  this  sentiment  to  him 
as  groundless,  and  as  neither  just  nor  candid.  He 
is  understood  to  agree,  however,  with  Dr.  Taylor, 
that  there  is  what  may  truly  and  properly  be  called 

*  Christian  Spectator,  1833,  pp.  449—459. 


196    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR 
Dr.  Tyler  disclaims  a  constitutional  propensity  to  sin. 

a  bias,  or  propensity,  to  sin  in  all  men.  But  they 
concur  in  believing  with  Edwards,  that  the  ground 
or  reason  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind, 
instead  of  being  a  disposition  to  sin  which  is  volun- 
tary and  sinful,  or  a  constitutional  propensity  of  the 
mind,  is  simply  a  tendency,  liableness,  or  proclivity 
to  sin,  resulting  from  constitutional  propensities 
which  were  in  man  in  innocence. 

Dr.  Tyler,  is  also  understood  to  admit,  that  man- 
kind come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in 
KIND,  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created ;  to 
maintain  that  mankind  not  only  may  he,  but  are 
sinners  hy  nature,  without  a  constitutional  propen- 
sity to  sin  ;  and  that  the  only  reason  that  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam  do  not  exhibit  the  same  moral  char- 
acter which  Adam  exhibited,  is  not  that  they  have  a 
different  nature  in  kind,  but  that  they  have  stronger 
propensities  to  natural  good,  and  are  placed  in  dif- 
ferent circumstances.  Thus  Dr.  Taylor  considered 
Dr.  Tyler  as  now  agreeing  with  him,  in  the  views 
which  he  had  always  maintained  of  the  doctrine  of 
depravity  by  nature.* 

Hence  it  seemed  to  him,  not  only  unnecessary, 
but  impossible,  to  protract  the  debate. 

The  subject,  however,  was  viewed  differently 
by  Dr.  Tyler.     He  published  his  letter  to  the  Edi- 

*  pp.  459-467. 


AND     DR.    TYLER     CONTINUED.  197 

Dr.  Tyler's  nine  articles  of  disagreement. 

tor  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  and  subjoined  re- 
marks denying  the  supposed  agreement  between 
himself  and  Dr.  Taylor.  To  shew  that  their  views 
do  not  harmonize,  he  made  the  following  nine  spe- 
cifications, in  which  he  claims  that  his  opponent 
differs  in  sentiment  from  himself. 

Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  he  says,  contrary  to  his 
belief:  1.  That  God  could  not  have  prevented  all 
sin  in  a  moral  system ;  2.  That  the  existence  of 
sin  is  not  on  the  whole  for  the  best,  and  that  a 
greater  amount  of  good  would  have  been  secured, 
had  all  God's  creatures  remained  holy,  than  will 
result  from  the  present  system ;  3.  That  God,  all 
things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin  in  all  in- 
stances in  which  the  latter  takes  place ;  4.  That 
mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature 
in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created; 
5.  That  the  only  reason  that  the  posterity  of  Adam 
do  not  exhibit  the  same  moral  character  which 
Adam  exhibited,  is  not  that  they  have  a  different 
natiu:e,  but  that  they  are  placed  in  different  circum- 
stances ;  6.  That  selfishness  does  not  consist  in 
making  our  own  happiness  our  ultimate  end,  but  in 
love  of  the  world,  or  in  preferring  the  world  to  God 
as  our  portion  or  chief  good ;  7.  That  self-love  is 
the  primary  cause  of  all  moral  action  ;  8.  That  sin- 
ners may  so  resist  the  grace  of  God,  as  to  render  it 
impossible  for  God  to  convert  them ;  and,  9.  That 
17* 


198    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR 

Examination  of  the  nine  articles. 

antecedent  to  regeneration  the  selfish  principle  is 
suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart ;  that  he  cesises  to 
sin ;  and  uses  the  means  of  regeneration  with  mo- 
tives which  £ire  neither  right  nor  wrong.*  Here, 
then,  are  exhibited  in  Dr.  Tyler's  own  language, 
the  sentiments  of  his  opponent,  on  the  points  on 
which  he  regards  him  as  differing  from  himself. 
Lest  these  statements  should  pass  from  the  mind  of 
the  reader,  or  should  not  be  duly  compared  with 
the  previous  history  of  the  discussion,  a  few  re- 
marks will  be  bestowed  upon  them  before  proceed- 
ing farther. 

1.  Not  one  of  the  alledged  points  of  difference, 
even  admitting  that  they  are  correctly  stated,  re- 
lates to  a  single  important  doctrine  of  the  gospel. 
They  have  reference  to  abstract  theories  and  specu- 
lations, which,  whether  true  or  false,  do  not  touch 
the  facts  embraced  in  the  fundamental  articles  of 
the  Calvin istic  faith. 

2.  Of  the  nine  specifications,  the  first  and  fifth 
are  entire  misstatements  of  Dr.  Taylor's  views.  So 
far  from  maintaining  that  God  could  not  have  pre- 
vented all  sin  in  a  moral  system,  he  has  merely  as- 
serted that  it  may  be  true,  that  sin  is  a  necessary 
incident,  so  far  as  God's  prevention  is  concerned,  to 
the  best  moral  system ;  and  instead  of  attributing 

*  Pamphlet,  pp.  36—39. 


AND     DR.    TYLER     CONTINUED.  199 

Dr.  Taylor's  views  misstated. — Ambiguity  of  the  language  used. 

the  present  sinful  character  of  man  to  his  circum- 
stances, and  not  to  his  nature,  he  expressly  ascribes 
it  to  his  nature,  which  is  such,  in  consequence  of 
his  connection  with  Adam,  that  he  sins,  and  only 
sins,  in  all  the  appropriate  circumstances  of  his  be- 
ing. 

The  second  and  third  specifications  are  liable  to 
be  misunderstood.  When  it  is  maintained  by  Dr. 
Taylor,  that  sin  is  not,  on  the  whole,  for  the  best ; 
that  greater  good  than  the  present  would  be  secured 
by  the  holiness  of  all  God's  creatures ;  and  that,  all 
things  considered,  God  prefers  in  every  instance  ho- 
liness to  sin ;  a  part  of  "  the  whole,"  and  of  "  all 
things  to  be  considered,"  is  the  voluntary  obedi- 
ence of  all  sinners  to  the  divine  law,  under  the 
present  system,  which  is  preferable  to  sin  and  mis- 
ery in  its  stead. 

The  fourth  specification  is  also  liable  to  be  mis- 
understood. By  the  same  nature,  in  kind,  some 
may  suppose  that  the  same,  m  all  respects,  is  intend- 
ed ;  whereas  all  that  is  meant,  is  that  the  posterity 
of  Adam  have  a  soul  possessed  of  the  same  powers 
and  susceptibilities  as  that  with  which  he  was  cre- 
ated ;  so  that,  like  him,  they  are  human  beings  and 
moral  agents.  At  the  same  time,  their  propensities 
to  inferior  good  may  be  stronger  than  his  in  a  state 
of  innocency,  and  be  the  occasion  of  sin  in  all  our 
race. 


200    DISCUSSION    BETWEEN    DR.    TAYLOR 

The  power  of  God  to  convert  sinners  not  denied. 

The  sixth  and  seventh  specifications  are  ambigu- 
ous, and  owing  to  their  ambiguity,  Dr.  Tyler  has 
been  led  not  only  into  much  useless  discussion,  but 
into  several  inconsistencies.  The  ambiguity  lies  in 
the  terms  ultimate  end  and  self-love.  The  former 
is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  external  motive  or 
object  of  choice,  in  which  sense  Dr.  Tyler  uses  it ; 
while  Dr.  Taylor  means  by  it,  the  constitutional 
desire  of  happiness,  called  also  self-love,  which  is 
the  internal  motive  or  cause  of  all  action.  In  one 
sense,  the  ultimate  end  of  the  miser  is  wealth ;  in 
the  other,  the  pleasure  or  happiness  to  be  gained  by 
its  possession  and  pursuit.  The  term  self-love,  in 
some  minds,  is  the  same  as  selfishness ;  and  it  is 
difficult  for  them  to  detach  from  it  a  bad  significa- 
tion, and  use  it  as  synonymous  with  a  simple  desire 
for  happiness.  There  is  also  another  difficulty  in 
the  case ;  that  of  bringing  some  to  think  what  fits 
man  to  act  at  all,  viz.  the  feeling  of  pleasure,  or  the 
happiness  proposed  to  the  mind  by  action ;  which 
distinguishes  them,  in  respect  to  their  capacity  for 
action,  from  inanimate  things.  If  Dr.  Tyler  had 
these  things  in  mind,  he  would  be  agreed,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, with  Dr.  Taylor,  in  respect  to  these  specifi- 
cations. Indeed,  he  has  admitted  all  that  has  ever 
been  maintained  on  this  subject  by  Dr.  Taylor. 

The  eighth  specification  contains  a  mis-statement. 
It  has  never  been  maintained,  that  it  is  impossible 


AND     DR.    TYLER     CONTINUED.  201 

How  the  selfish  principle  is  suspended. 

for  God  to  convert  any  sinner  or  all  the  sinners  be- 
longing to  the  human  race ;  but  only  that  sinners 
have  natural  power  of  resisting  divine  grace,  when 
they  yield  to  it  and  it  becomes  effectual  to  their 
conversion ;  in  other  words,  that  a  moral  being,  in 
choosing  God,  has,  at  the  same  time,  power  of  con- 
trary choice.  If  he  has  not  this  power,  then  in  his 
conversion  he  ceases  to  be  a  moral  agent. 

The  last  specification  contains  one  mis-statement, 
and  the  whole  is  calculated  to  mislead  those  not 
familiar  with  the  controversy.  All  that  is  maintain- 
ed by  Dr.  Taylor  is,  that  the  active  love  of  the  world 
ceases  to  predominate  in  the  sinner's  mind,  the  in- 
divisible moment  of  time  that,  under  the  promptings 
of  a  constitutional  desire  of  happiness,  he  thinks  of 
God  as  an  object  of  preference,  before,  in  the  order 
of  nature,  he  places  his  supreme  affections  on  him. 
This  indivisible  moment,  the  sinner  does  not  cease 
to  sin ;  for  he  does  not  love  God  supremely,  until 
the  final  choice  or  preference  of  him  is  made. 

Thus,  the  nine  points  of  difference,  when  exam- 
ined, are  found  to  exist  principally  in  Dr.  Tyler's 
misapprehension  of  Dr.  Taylor's  sentiments ;  owing 
in  part  to  the  ambiguity  of  language,  and  partly  to 
his  own  confused  ideas  respecting  the  two  distinct 
departments  of  moral  agency,  the  will  and  the  in- 
voluntary constitutional  propensities. 


202 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

DISCUSSION     ON     THE      DOCTRINE     OF     DIr 
VINE     PURPOSES. 

Review  of  Fisk. — Point  at  issue  stated. 

The  history  of  the  discussion  between  Dr.  Tay- 
lor and  Dr.  Tyler  being  now  brought  to  a  close,  it 
remains  to  notice  some  other  writings  on  the  same 
general  controversy.  In  doing  this,  a  scrupulous 
regard  will  not  be  had  to  the  order  of  time  in  which 
these  writings  appeared  ;  but  they  will  be  taken  up 
in  such  order  as  will  best  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
particular  topics,  and  the  connection  of  the  whole 
subject.  The  discussion  on  the  doctrine  of  the  di- 
vine purposes  will  first  be  noticed. 

In  the  number  of  the  Christian  Spectator,  for 
Dec.  1831,  was  published  a  review  written  by  Pro- 
fessor Fitch,  of  Yale  College,  of  a  sermon  by  Dr. 
Fisk,  President  of  the  Wesleyan  University,  on 
Predestination  and  Election.  The  point  at  issue, 
as  stated  in  the  sermon,  the  reviewer  understands 
to  be,  "  whether  God  does,  or  does  not  produce^  by 
his  efficient  energy,  those  volitions  of  moral  beings 
for  which  he  holds  them  accountable?"  This, 
however,  is  not  the  question  between  Calvinists 


DISCUSSION,     &c.  203 

How  predestination  is  consistent  with  freedom  of  volition. 

and  Arminians.  It  is,  whether  or  not  God  deter- 
mined that  the  events  which  take  place,  should  take 
place,  in  the  very  manner  in  which  they  do,  and  for 
the  very  ends.  This  is  a  question  of  fact,  and  does 
not  depend  on  the  mode  in  which  the  determined 
events  are  accomplished.  Calvinists  generally  be- 
lieve, that  it  is  in  such  a  manner  that ''  thereby  God 
is  neither  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered 
to  the  will  of  the  creatures ;  nor  is  the  liberty  or 
contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather 
established.  The  only  points  against  which  the 
resisoning  in  the  sermon  has  any  force,  are  these 
two :  first,  that  God  produces,  by  his  direct  omnip- 
otence, the  volitions  of  his  accountable  creatures ; 
and  secondly,  that  he  prefers  the  existence  of  sin 
(where  it  occurs)  to  holiness  :  neither  of  which  po- 
sitions is  maintained  by  the  great  body  of  Calvin- 
ists.* The  reviewer  then  shews  that  God  may,  in 
his  eternal  purpose  concerning  his  own  works,  pre- 
determine the  particular  train  of  events  which  shall 
occur  in  his  kingdom,  without  producing  the  voli- 
tions of  his  moral  subjects  by  any  direct  and  imme- 
diate acts  of  his  creative  omnipotence.  Man  being 
created  and  upheld  by  God  as  an  intelligent  and 
voluntary  agent,  is  the  efficient  cause  of  his  own 
volitions  ;  and  his  moral  actions  may  be  pre-deter- 

*  Christian  Spectator,  1831,  pp.  598—605. 


204  DISCUSSION     ON     THE 

Doctrine  of  election  respects  men  as  sinners. 

mined  in  the  purpose  or  choice  of  God  to  create  and 
govern  the  moral  universe  to  which  he  belongs,  by 
that  system  of  means  and  influences,  under  which 
he,  as  a  moral  agent,  has  his  existence. 

It  may  be  true  also,  that  God  prefers  in  every  in- 
stance in  which  sin  occurs,  holiness  in  its  stead,  and 
yet  has  determined  the  existence  of  sin.  He  may 
have  purposed  its  existence,  because  he  preferred 
it,  in  connection  with  the  system  which  he  has 
chosen,  to  the  non-existence  of  a  moral  kingdom. 
Thus,  in  purposing  to  create,  uphold,  and  govern  a 
moral  kingdom,  he  may  have  purposed  the  sinful 
actions  of  a  portion  of  his  subjects,  without  laying 
them  under  any  compulsion  to  sin,  or  doing  any 
thing  directly  and  efficiently,  with  the  design  of  se- 
eming their  wrong  moral  action ;  and  he  may,  in 
every  instance  in  which  they  sin,  prefer  their  obe- 
dience. 

The  particular  doctrine  of  election  is  a  purpose 
of  God  that  respects  mankind,  as  sinnei-s :  a  pur- 
pose to  save  a  part  of  those,  who  he  foreknew  would 
sin ;  not  on  account  of  any  foreseen  faith  or  good 
works  on  their  part,  but  on  account  of  the  good  to 
be  secured  by  the  divine  interposition  in  their  be- 
half. Each  individual  chosen  is  ordained  to  ever- 
lasting life ;  and  in  fulfilling  his  electing  purpose 
towards  him,  God,  having  in  due  time  provided  a 
way  of  salvation,  secures  his  compliance  with  the 


DOCTRINE     OF     DIVINE     PURPOSES.     205 
Includes  the  purpose  to  produce  holiness  in  the  elect. 

terms,  by  the  various  means  which  he  employs ; 
particularly  the  sanctilication  of  the  Spirit ;  and 
keeps  him  by  his  mighty  power  through  faith  unto 
salvation.  Thus,  the  purpose  of  election  includes, 
the  purpose  to  produce  holiness  in  the  elect,  and  to 
secure  his  perseverance  in  it  to  the  end.  In  the 
accomplishment  of  this  purpose,  the  elect  himself, 
as  a  moral  being,  voluntarily  yields  himself  to 
Christ  through  the  belief  of  the  truth,  and  works 
out  his  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  while 
God,  at  the  same  time,  though  without  compulsion, 
works  in  him  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own 
good  pleasure. 

Such  is  the  general  scheme  of  the  reviewer  of 
Fisk  on  Predestination  and  Election.  The  article 
of  course  met  the  disapprobation  of  the  Hopkin- 
sians  and  others,  who  hold  that  sin  is  the  necessary 
means  of  the  greatest  good  and  preferable  to  holi- 
ness in  its  stead  ;  of  the  supralapsarians,  who  main- 
tain that  God  by  an  eternal  decree  determines  the 
destinies  of  men  for  his  own  glory,  and  without 
regard  to  their  voluntary  agency ;  of  those  who 
hold  the  "taste  scheme;"  and  of  all  others  who 
consider  God,  as  controlling  the  actions  of  his  moral 
subjects  by  the  mere  exercise  of  creative  omnipo- 
tence, without  regard  to  means  adapted  to  their 
moral  agency.  In  1833,  two  works  appeared,  de- 
signed to  oppose  the  views  advocated  by  the  New 
18 


206 


DISCUSSION     ON     THE 


Dr.  Lee's  Letters, — Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency. 

Haven  divines ,-  and  particularly  to  support  the  doc- 
trine of  divine  efficiency.  One  of  these  was  from 
the  pen  of  Chauncey  Lee,  D.  D.,  of  Connecticut ; 
the  other  was  by  Dr.  Griffin,  then  President  of  Will- 
iams College.  The  former  writer  considered  him- 
self called  upon,  by  the  efforts  at  present  made  to 
disseminate  ''  the  pernicious  doctrines  of  Arminius," 
to  undertake  the  defense  of  the  truth.  He  advo- 
cates the  supralapsarian  views  of  Predestination 
and  Election  ;  asserting  "  that  God  had  no  motive 
out  of  himself"  for  electing  some  to  everlasting  life. 
In  regard  to  divine  efficiency,  he  maintains  that 
God  produces  the  volitions  of  men,  and  converts 
sinners  by  an  act  of  physical  omnipotence  and  irre- 
sistible power ;  so  that  in  regeneration,  "  the  crea- 
ture is  no  more  active  than  in  his  original  creation." 

The  work  of  Dr.  Griffin  professes  to  be  a  defense 
of  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency,  against  certain 
modern  speculations.  He  first  examines  "  the  the- 
ory exhibited"  in  the  review  of  Fisk,  which  he 
says  "  is  one  half  of  the  way  pure  Arminianism  ; 
and  the  other  half  it  assumes  the  high  language  of 
Calvinism,  with  an  Arminian  meaning  two  thirds 
of  the  way,  and  for  the  other  third  a  Calvinistic 
meaning  wholly  at  variance  with  the  rest  of  the 
system." 

He  next  examines  "  the  theory  of  Dr.  Taylor" 
as  exliibited  in  the  review  of  Spring,  on  the  means 


DOCTRINE     OF     DIVINE     PURPOSES.    207 
How  Dr.  Griffin  interprets  the  New  Haven  doctrines. 

of  regeneration.  He  regards  him  as  every  where 
denying  divine  efficiency  and  Umiting  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  to  the  mere  presentation  of  motives ; 
and  of  course  he  considers  that  his  views  of  pre- 
destination and  election  agree  with  those  of  Dr. 
Fitch,  and  are  essentially  Arminian. 

In  order  to  exhibit  the  difference  of  views  be- 
tween Dr.  Griffin  and  the  New  Haven  divines,  it 
will  be  necessary  first  to  point  out  some  errors  in 
his  statement  of  their  doctrines,  and  then  to  pre- 
sent, side  by  side,  the  sentiments  of  both  on  the 
controverted  topics. 

1.  Dr.  Griffin  misrepresents  (not  intentionally  it 
is  presumed)  the  New  Haven  divines,  in  asserting 
that  they  deny  the  controlling  power  of  God  over 
the  minds  of  all  his  moral  subjects  in  this  world. 
His  error  on  this  subject  results,  no  doubt,  from  a 
failure  to  perceive  how  such  control  can  be  main- 
tained, without  the  direct  application  of  physical 
power,  which  destroys  the  capacity  of  resistance 
in  the  being  upon  whom  it  is  exerted.  He  seems 
to  imagine  that  the  application  of  divine  influence, 
m  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  the  power  of  contrary 
choice  in  the  moral  agent,  though  the  result  is  the 
certain  voluntary  action  of  that  agent  in  obedience 
to  the  influence  employed,  can  never  secure  infal- 
libly the  accomplishment  of  the  divine  purposes. 
Hence,  he  understands  those  whom  he  opposes,  to 


208 


DISCUSSION     ON     THE 


Dr.  Griffin  misstates  the  New  Haven  divines. 

deny,  that  God  is  able  absolutely  to  control  his 
creatures  in  this  world. 

2.  Dr.  Griffin  misrepresents  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines, in  imputing  to  them  the  sentiment  "  that  all 
God  can  do  is  to  throw  truth  upon  the  understand- 
ing and  conscience  of  men  by  his  illuminating 
Spirit ;"  and  that  the  Spirit  thus  operates  on  the 
truth  in  making  it  effectual  to  their  conversion. 
They  affirm  that  God  operates  on  the  minds  of  men, 
and  that  men  act  in  view  of  truth  and  motives  in 
yielding  to  divine  influence.  The  error  that  Dr. 
Griffin  falls  into  in  regard  to  their  belief  on  this 
point,  is  to  be  traced  to  his  own  views  of  efficiency. 
His  philosophy  is  that  of  Dr.  Burton.  He  believes 
*'  in  a  temper  or  nature  anterior  to  exercise."  *'  No 
motives,  great  or  small,  will  prevail,  unless  adapted 
to  the  existing  temper."  Hence,  antecedent  to  any 
influence  of  truth  or  to  any  moral  action  in  view  of 
motives,  the  hearts  of  men  must  be  changed  by  a 
direct  physicsd  efficiency.  Yet,  when  it  is  said 
''that  God  efficiently  causes  the  mind  to  see  the 
truth  in  such  a  light  that  it  infallibly  falls  in  with 
it,"  he  does  not  object  to  the  statement.  He  says, 
"  if  the  divine  power  is  applied  directly  to  the  mind 
to  make  truth  seen,  attended  to  and  felt,  it  is  all  we 
ask."*    If  he  had  admitted  also  that  when  truth  is 

*  Divine  Efficiency,  p.  99. 


DOCTRINE     OF     DIVINE     PURPOSES.    209 
Dr.  Griffin  misstates  the  New  Haven  divines. 

thus  seen,  attended  to,  and  felt,  the  sinner  in  regen- 
eration chooses  God  in  view  of  it,  he  would  have 
admitted  all  that  is  contended  for  on  this  subject  by 
the  New  Haven  divines. 

3.  Dr.  Griffin  misrepresents  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines in  ascribing  to  them  the  belief  ''that  God 
does  the  best  he  can  by  his  Spirit  for  every  indi- 
vidual, and  therefore,  as  much  for  one  as  another." 
They,  on  the  contrary,  believe  that  God  can  do 
much  more  than  he  does  for  any  individual  and  for 
every  individual  of  our  race,  when  they  are  con- 
sidered as  individuals,  and  without  relation  to  all 
the  subjects  of  the  divine  kingdom  and  for  eter- 
nity ;  in  other  words,  they  only  believe  with  Dr. 
Griffin  himself,  "  that  God  does  the  best  he  can  for 
each,  consistently  with  the  highest  good  of  the 
universe."  And  in  regard  to  their  believing  that 
he  does  as  much  for  one  as  another,  this  is  only  an 
inference  from  a  mis-statement  of  their  views,  for 
which  there  is  no  authority  in  any  of  their  writings, 
and  which  is  no  part  of  their  doctrines. 

4.  Dr.  Griffin  misrepresents  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines in  regard  to  their  views  of  a  self-determining 
power.  He  seems  to  suppose  that  they  hold  the 
Arminian  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  that 
the  soul  in  willing,  determines  itself  absolutely  and 
independently  by  its  own  act.  In  opposition  to  this 
doctrine,  it  is  maintained  by  Edwards,  that  the  will 

18* 


210  DISCUSSION     ON     THE 

Views  of  Dr.  Griffin  and  the  New  Haven  divines  compared. 

is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good  ;  in  other  words  that 
the  mind's  estimate  of  the  greatest  good  determines 
the  choice,  the  power  of  contrary  choice  notwith- 
standing.    This  is  also  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Haven  divines.     When  the  question  is,  what  de- 
termines the  will  in  every  specific  volition  ?  their 
answer  is,  the  greatest  apparent  good  as  perceived 
and  estimated  by  the  mind,  previously  but  proxi- 
mately to  the  act  of  choice.     In  this  they  agree 
with  Edwards,  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian  doc- 
trine which  he  controverts  in  his  treatise  on  the 
will.     But  if  the  question  is,  why  does  the  will  act 
at  all  ?  here  again,  they  agree  with  Edwards,  that 
it  is  because  the  soul  has  the  power  or  faculty  of 
choosing  in  view  of  the  motives  which  determine 
it  to  choose  in  a  particular  manner.     Other  particu- 
lars might  be  mentioned  in  which  Dr.  Griffin  mis- 
represents the  views  of  the  New  Haven  divines  ; 
but  the  instances  referred  to  are  sufficient  for  the 
present  purpose. 

Some  of  the  views  which  he  maintains,  will  now 
be  compared  with  those  which  he  opposes,  by  bring- 
ing them  into  juxtaposition. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency.  This  he 
defines  to  be  "  the  effectual  power  of  God  immedi- 
ately applied  to  the  heart  to  make  it  holy."*     This 

*  p.  6. 


DOCTRINE     OF      DIVINE     PURPOSES.    211 
On  divine  efficiency  and  moral  agency. 


power  he  considers  not  only  exerted  on  men  in 
in  their  regeneration  and  sanctification,  but  on  holy 
beings  like  the  angels.  All  holy  volitions  are  pro- 
duced by  the  immediate  power  of  God.  This  effi- 
ciency is  exerted  by  a  direct  action  on  the  mind 
independently  of  motive,  and  without  the  power  of 
resistance  or  contrary  choice.  Such  is  understood 
to  be  the  divine  efficiency,  advocated  by  Dr.  Griffin. 

The  New  Haven  divines  might  adopt  his  defini- 
tion, but  with  a  different  meaning.  Divine  influ- 
ence they  consider  "  effectual"  and  "  applied  imme- 
diately to  the  mind,"  causing  in  the  subject  of  it 
right  moral  action ;  but  not  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
preclude  motives,  or  as  to  destroy  the  power  of  con- 
trary volition.  Hence,  they  oppose  that  view  of 
divine  efficiency  which  moves  moral  beings  like 
matter,  as  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  moral 
agency. 

2.  Dr.  Griffin  and  the  New  Haven  divines  differ 
in  regard  to  moral  agency. 

In  his  view,  a  moral  agent  is  one  who  has  the 
faculties  of  a  rational  soul,  but  who  is  not  necessa- 
rily independent  in  the  exercise  of  those  faculties. 
The  volitions  of  moral  beings  are  the  immediate 
result  of  divine  efficiency,  so  that  it  is  not  their  mo- 
r£d  depravity  that  makes  the  Spirit's  operations  ne- 
cessary in  respect  to  men  ;  but  the  want  of  power 
in  themselves  as  agents,  to  exercise  holy  affections 


212  DISCUSSION     ON     THE 

On  mora]  agency. — On  the  permission  of  sin. 

independent  of  the  action  of  God  upon  them.  The 
New  Haven  divines  regard  man  as  a  complete 
agent  in  himself,  and  the  author  or  efficient  cause 
of  his  own  moral  acts.  He  is  a  cause  of  action  out 
of  God,  created  and  upheld  by  him,  but  free  in  his 
volitions,  though  always  acting  in  view  of  motives, 
and  under  the  influences  which  God  is  pleased  to 
exert  upon  him.  They  regard  not  merely,  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  will  in  voluntary  acts,  but  the  power 
of  choosing  and  refusings  under  all  circumstances, 
essential  to  moral  agency.  Such  agents,  however, 
are  under  the  complete  control  of  God  according  to 
his  eternal  purpose  ;  but  the  manner  in  which  he 
controls  them  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
of  their  being.  Man  deviseth  his  way,  but  the  Lord 
directeth  his  steps. 

3.  Dr.  Griffin  and  the  New  Haven  divines  differ 
in  regard  to  the  divine  permission  of  sin. 

Dr.  Griffin  maintains  that  God  can  prevent  sin 
in  all  the  moral  agents  whom  he  has  created,  in  all 
circumstances  and  in  all  duration ;  and  that  he  has 
purposed  its  existence  for  his  own  glory.  For  this 
end  the  highest  exhibition  of  himself,  involving  the 
display  of  all  truth,  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  the 
work  of  redemption,  is  necessary.  He  considers 
sin,  therefore,  a  necessary  means  of  the  highest  dis- 
play of  the  divine  perfections,  and  as  answering 
great  and  important  purposes  under  the  government 


DOCTRINE     OF    DIVINE     PURPOSES.     213 
On  the  permission  of  sin. 

of  God.  He,  however,  admits  that  the  greatest  dis- 
play of  the  glory  of  God  is  necessary  to  the  highest 
general  holiness,  and  that  he  does  for  each  of  his 
creatures,  the  best  that  he  can,  consistently  with 
his  glory ;  but  denies  that  the  difficulty  of  doing 
more,  for  securing  the  holiness  of  all,  lies  in  the 
nature  of  a  moral  system. 

The  New  Haven  divines  maintain,  that  God  acts 
for  the  highest  happiness  of  the  universe,  and  chose 
the  present  system  as  the  best  possible  to  him  for 
this  end ;  that  holiness  is  preferable,  for  this  end, 
to  sin,  in  all  instances ;  and  that  the  reason  of  the 
divine  permission  of  sin,  may  he,  that  such  is  the 
nature  of  moral  agency,  that,  in  a  universe  of  moral 
beings,  the  entire  prevention  of  wrong  moral  action 
through  eternity,  may  be  inconsistent,  so  far  as 
God  is  concerned,  with  the  best  system  possible  to 
him.  Dr.  Griffin  and  the  New  Haven  divines  agree, 
therefore,  that  God  has  chosen  the  present  system, 
because  it  will  result  in  the  highest  holiness  and 
happiness  possible  to  him  to  secure ;  and  they  agree, 
that  in  doing  this,  he  acts  for  his  own  highest  glory. 
They  agree  also,  that  the  display  of  his  perfection 
is  necessEiry  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  highest 
good  in  the  universe,  and  that  the  admission  of  sin 
into  his  moral  kingdom,  was  in  some  sense  neces- 
sary to  him.  When  the  question  is,  why  is  its  ad- 
mission necessary  ?  Dr.  Griffin  answers ;  As  a  means 


214  DISCUSSION     ON     THE 

On  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  election, 

of  the  greatest  good,  by  furnishing  the  occasion  for 
God  to  display  his  perfections :  they  answer,  There 
may  be  difficulties  in  the  nature  of  the  best  moral 
system,  which  make  sin  necessarily,  in  respect  to 
divine  prevention,  incidental  to  that  system.  At 
the  same  time  both  are  agreed  as  to  the  fact,  that 
God  does  all  he  can,  consistently  with  his  own 
glory  and  the  highest  good,  for  the  holiness  and 
happiness  of  all  his  creatures. 

4.  Dr.  Griffin  differs  from  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines, in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
and  election. 

He  maintains,  that  God  decreed  from  eternity 
that  the  actions  of  a  part  of  his  creatures  should  be 
holy,  and  that  a  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  world 
should  repent,  by  determining  to  exert  his  own  effi- 
ciency to  produce  in  them  holiness  and  repentance  ; 
that  he  decreed  the  sinful  actions  of  others,  by  de- 
termining to  withhold  that  efficiency  which  he  was 
able  to  exert,  and  which  was  necessary  to  secure 
their  holiness ;  and  that  in  these  decrees  he  acted 
for  his  own  glory.  The  New  Haven  divines  main- 
tain, that  God,  from  eternity,  foreseeing  all  things 
possible  and  conceivable,  determined  on  the  present 
system  of  the  universe,  which  involved  the  exist- 
ence of  sin,  as  the  best  possible  to  him,  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  happiness  which  he  could  secure  by  it  ; 
that  in  determining  this,  he  purposed  to  exert  his 


DOCTRINE     OF    DIVINE     PURPOSES.     215 

On  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  election. 

own  agency  in  creation,  and  in  the  administration 
of  his  government,  in  the  best  manner  possible  for 
securing  the  highest  good  of  the  whole  ;  and  that 
thus  he  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 
Hence,  he  determined  all  his  own  acts  in  regard  to 
every  moral  being,  choosing  from  the  whole  those 
whom  he  would  retain  in  holiness,  and  electing 
from  mankind  such  as  he  would  bring  to  repent- 
ance ;  for  wise  reasons,  permitting  others  to  go  on 
in  sin,  under  such  influences  as  he  determined  to 
exert  upon  them.  Thus,  their  diff'erence  of  views 
consists,  not  in  the  facts  which  constitute  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination  and  election,  but  in  respect 
to  the  reasons  of  the  divine  purposes,  and  the  mode 
of  accomplishing  them. 

From  this  examination  of  Dr.  Griffin's  work  on 
divine  efficiency,  it  is  apparent,  that  his  sentiments 
do  not  altogether  accord  with  those  which  have 
been  held  by  the  standard  New  England  writers, 
and  that  he  has,  on  most  of  the  essential  points  in 
controversy,  greatly  misunderstood  and  misrepre- 
sented the  opinions  which  he  designed  to  oppose. 
The  foundation  of  his  mistakes  lay  in  his  philoso- 
phy of  moral  agency,  which  led  him  virtually  to 
deny  to  man  the  power  of  originating  his  own  voli- 
tions. From  his  high  worth  and  great  influence  in 
the  churches,  his  work  was  calculated  to  excite,  in 
some  quarters,  no  small  distrust  of  the  theology 


216  DISCUSSION,    &c. 

Influence  of  Dr.  Griffin's  work. 

which  he  was  understood  to  oppose.  It  had  its 
influence  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  was,  in 
some  degree,  no  doubt,  concerned  in  producing  the 
mistakes  and  misapprehension,  which  have  resuhed 
in  its  present  unhappy  divisions. 


217 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS     ON     NATIVE 
DEPRAVITY. 


Dr.  Spring  on  native  depravity. 


It  has  already  been  shewn,  that  Mr.  Harvey,  in 
his  second  pamphlet,  entirely  changed  the  original 
ground  of  controversy,  which  related  to  the  nature 
of  sin,  into  the  question  whether  mankind  are  sin- 
ners from  the  instant  of  their  birth  ?  It  was  then 
intimated  that  the  discussion  of  this  question,  which 
afterwards  assumed  a  prominent  place  in  the  con- 
troversy, would  again  be  referred  to,  and  more  fully 
exhibited.  Some  important  events,  of  a  previous 
date,  being  for  the  present  passed  by,  for  the  sake 
of  concluding  in  this  place,  the  account  of  the  doc- 
trinal discussion,  two  or  three  articles  will  now  be 
noticed,  which  have  maintained  the  sentiment,  that 
mankind  sin  at  and  in  the  moment  of  their  birth. 

In  1833,  Dr.  Gardiner  Spring  published  a  dis- 
sertation on  native  depravity,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  combat  the  error  of  the  New  Haven  School. 
The  first  assault  upon  the  doctrine  of  native  de- 
pravity, he  says,  was  from  them,  and  in  their  own 
covered  way  to  the  field.  He  represents  them  as 
at  first  delicately  and  modestly  hinting,  in  conver- 
19 


218  DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

Infants,  sinners  the  moment  of  birth. 

sation,  at  the  error  in  question,  and  suggesting 
doubts  as  to  what  the  Bible  taught  in  relation  to 
the  native  character  of  our  fallen  race.  "  But  this 
period  of  hesitation  and  scepticism,"  he  says,  "  has 
gone  by.  The  scriptural  doctrine  of  native  deprav- 
ity is  now  boldly  denied.  For  a  considerable  time 
past  it  has  been  unhesitatingly  maintained,  that  all 
mankind  are  born  destitute  of  moral  character,  and 
are  neither  holy  nor  sinful ;  that,  though  they  are 
destitute  of  original  righteousness,  they  are  free 
from  sin,  and  have  no  moral  corruption  of  nature, 
or  propensity  to  evil ;  that  they  are  perfectly  inno- 
cent ;  that  they  have  no  more  moral  chsiracter  than 
animals ;  and  that  they  come  into  existence  in  the 
same  state  in  which  Adam  was  before  his  fall,  and 
in  which  the  holy  child  Jesus  was,  when  he  was 
born  in  the  manger."*  For  proof  of  these  state- 
ments he  refers  to  the  Christian  Spectator,  and  Stu- 
art on  the  Romans.  In  opposition  to  these  views, 
his  object  in  the  dissertation  is  to  shew,  that  infants 
are  simiers.  Sin,  he  says,  is  a  positive  existence 
and  a  moral  evil,  consisting  in  the  transgression  of 
law  by  intelligent  beings.  He  defines  the  disposi- 
tion, moral  feelings,  or  inclinations  of  the  soul, 
which  constitute  sin,  to  be  a  supremely  selfish 
spirit.     "  There  is  no  other  sin  in  the  empire  of  Je- 

*  Page  4. 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  219 

All  sin  voluntary. 

hovah  but  this.  When  we  say  that  men  are  sin- 
ners, we  mean  to  say  that  they  are  doers  and  per- 
petrators of  this  foul  deed.''*  The  question  wheth- 
er infants  are  capable  of  moral  character,  is  synony- 
mous with  the  question,  whether  they  have  a  ra- 
tional and  immortal  soul  ?  Such  a  soul  they  pos- 
sess from  their  birth ;  and  it  consists  in  natural 
faculties  and  moral  dispositions.  The  former  are 
independent  of  the  will,  and  belong  to  the  intel- 
lectual character.  The  latter  are  the  internal  op- 
erations or  emotions  of  the  mind,  which  can  be 
compared  with  a  rule  of  action.  These  are  both 
essential  to  the  soul's  existence,  and  belong  to  the 
infant  of  a  day  old,  as  really  as  to  a  man  of  eighty. 
The  law  which  the  infant  transgresses  as  soon  as 
he  is  born,  is  conscience,  which  is  one  of  the  natu- 
ral faculties  of  the  soul.  Accordingly,  as  soon  eis 
he  is  born,  the  infant  puts  forth  moral  emotions  or 
exercises  of  the  will,  which  he  judges  to  be  wrong, 
and  knows  to  be  violations  of  conscience  ;  or  rather, 
according  to  Dr.  Spring's  philosophy,  as  the  moral 
dispositions  are  properties  essential  to  the  soul's  ex- 
istence, the  soul  is  created  in  a  state  of  transgres- 
sion to  the  law  of  conscience.  The  doctrine  of  na- 
tive depravity,  thus  explained,  he  defends  by  a  re- 
ference to  various  texts  of  scripture,  and  by  argu- 

*  Page  9. 


220  DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

Misstatement  of  the  New  Haven  doctrines. 

ments  deduced  from  the  rite  of  circumcision  and 
baptism,  as  applied  to  infants ;  from  the  necessity 
that  their  salvation  should  be  through  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  and  that  they  should  be  subjects  of 
regeneration;  and  from  the  fact  that  they  suffer 
and  die. 

In  regard  to  Dr.  Spring's  statement  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  New  Haven  School,  it  is  proper  to  re- 
mark, that  the  language  which  has  been  quoted 
from  him  on  the  subject,  gives  a  very  unfair  repre- 
sentation of  their  opinions.  On  the  minds  of  many, 
it  will  unavoidably  have  the  impression,  that  they 
hold  that  infants  are  in  all  respects  such  as  they 
would  have  been,  if  mankind  were  not  sinners  ;  and 
that  there  is  no  ground  of  certainty  laid  in  the  con- 
stitution with  which  they  are  born,  that  they  will 
sin  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  moral  action. 

In  respect  to  the  reasoning  on  which  Dr.  Spring 
relies  for  the  support  of  his  doctrine  of  native  de- 
pravity, it  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  into  an  ex- 
amination of  it.  It  is  substantially  the  same,  as 
that  which  Mr.  Harvey  and  others  have  often  used 
on  this  subject,  and  which  has  been  examined  and 
replied  to  by  those  who  think  themselves  unable  to 
prove  from  reason  or  scripture,  that  infants,  the  in- 
stant  of  their  birth,  are  voluntary  transgressors  of 
known  law. 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITST.  221 

Review  of  Spring  on  native  depravity. 

This  dissertation  on  native  depravity  was  re- 
viewed in  the  Christian  Spectator  for  June,  1833, 
by  Dr.  Taylor.  The  reviewer  shews  that  Dr. 
Spring  differs  from  the  old  Calvinists,  from  the  ad- 
vocates of  physical  depravity,  and  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  in  making  all  sin  consist 
in  voluntary  action,  and  rejecting  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  •  that  he  differs  from  New  England  di- 
vines, who  make  all  sin  consist  in  mental  exercise 
or  action,  in  his  affirming  that  moral  agency  com- 
mences at  birth ;  but  differs  least  of  all  from  his 
New  Haven  brethren,  who  neither  affirm  nor  deny 
the  precise  time  when  moral  agency  commences  ; 
while  they  agree  with  him  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  sin.  Thus  he  stands  alone,  none  agreeing  with 
him  in  maintaining  that  voluntary  transgression 
commences  at  the  instant  of  birth  ;  yet  he  denoun- 
ces those  from  whom  he  differs  least,  as  Pelagians, 
and  sets  up  his  own  individual  opinion  as  the  stand- 
ard of  orthodoxy.* 

*  Since  the  review  was  written,  it  is  believed  that  Dr.  Spring's 
views  on  this  subject,  have  been  to  some  extent  adopted  by  a  cer- 
tain class  of  writers  in  New  England.  The  Evangelical  Maga- 
zine, the  organ  of  the  party  in  Connecticut  opposed  to  the  New 
Haven  divines,  has  sometimes  seemed  to  advocate  these  views; 
though  at  other  times  it  has  appeared  to  favor  the  doctrine  of  an 
innate  sinful  depravity  back  of  all  moral  action.  Dr.  Woods  ap- 
pears to  adopt  the  views  of  Dr.  Spring,  though  he  is  by  no  means 
so  explicit  in  his  statements. 

19* 


222  DB.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

Dr.  Woods'  prize  essay. — Difficulty  of  interpreting  his  language. 

Ill  1835,  Dr.  Woods  published  his  prize  essay 
on  native  depravity.*  As  this  work  owes  its  ex- 
istence no  doubt  to  the  New  Haven  controversy, 
and  has  reference  to  one  of  the  principal  subjects 
of  that  controversy,  it  would  be  improper  to  pass 
over  it  here  in  silence.  The  examination  of  it 
however  must  be  brief.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to 
ascertain  the  exact  meaning,  on  nice  metaphysical 
points,  of  a  writer  like  Dr.  Woods.  Instead  of 
laying  down  his  main  positions,  in  clear  and  dis- 
tinct propositions,  he  involves  them  in  such  cum- 
brous explanations,  and  suggestions,  and  reasonings, 
sometimes  apparently  inconsistent  with  each  other, 
that  there  is  occasion  often,  in  interpreting  his  lan- 
guage, to  resort  to  comparisons  of  different  passages 
and  to  the  general  current  of  thought,  and  then  by 
inference  arrive  at  his  meaning.  Such  being  the 
fact,  it  is  not  easy  in  all  cases  to  avoid  mistake. 
The  following,  however,  are  believed  to  be  the 
leading  doctrines  of  the  Essay  on  Native  Depravity. 

1.  The  depravity  of  which  he  treats  relates  to 
man's  moral  character,  and  means  the  same  as  sin- 
fulness. 

2.  It  is  an  innate,  hereditary  disposition  or  pro- 
pensity to  sin,  consisting  in  a  want  of  conformity 

*  It  is  proper  to  remark  that  considerable  matter  was  added  to 
the  work,  after  the  prize  was  awarded. 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  223 

How  he  represents  native  depravity. — Propagated  sinfulness. 

to  the  divine  law ;  it  is  in  itself  sinful,  and  the 
cause  of  all  actual  transgression. 

3.  It  is  predicable  of  all  the  descendants  of  Adam 
at  the  moment  of  their  birth,  and  is  the  ground  of 
their  being  justly  treated  by  God  as  sinners. 

The  first  of  these  specifications  is  the  substance 
of  his  definition,  (p.  54,)  and  needs  no  particular 
notice.  The  other  two  will  require  some  remarks, 
by  way  of  explanation  and  proof.  To  the  ques- 
tion, is  depravity  propagated  ?  Dr.  Woods  answers, 
(p.  207,)  "human  beings  Eire  propagated,  and  are 
propagated  as  they  are,  fallen,  corrupt."  "  Adam 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness."  "  This  includes 
the  whole  doctrine,  if  likeness  includes,  as  un- 
doubtedly it  does,  likeness  in  regard  to  moral  dis- 
position and  character."  Now,  as  Adam  was  an 
actual  transgressor  of  the  law  of  God,  and  had  in 
consequence  a  sinful  moral  character.  Dr.  Woods, 
it  would  seem,  must  mean  that  mankind  come  into 
the  world  transgressors  of  the  law  of  God,  and 
have  in  consequence  a  sinful  moral  character.  This 
view  of  his  meaning  is  confirmed  by  what  he  says 
in  other  passages.  He  says,  (p.  144,)  "the  fact  is, 
that  moral  good  and  evil,  virtue  and  vice,  lie  m  the 
affections  or  mental  acts  themselves,  considered  in 
their  own  nature.  It  were  easy  to  prove  that  this 
is  the  case,  and  that  on  any  other  principle,  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  virtue  or  vice,  hohness  or 


224  DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

Depravity  voluntary. — The  cause  of  actual  transgression. 

sin,  in  the  universe."  Again,  (p.  135,)  "sin  is  not 
the  product  or  effect  of  wrong  exercises  of  mind, 
but  lies  in  them ;  they  themselves  are  sin."  In 
these  passages  he  evidently  teaches,  that  sin  con- 
sists in  wrong  moral  affections  and  exercises.  And 
what  are  these  but  acts  of  the  will  ?  What,  but 
transgressions  of  the  law  of  God  ?  That  he  con- 
siders this  state  in  which  mankind  are  born  itself 
sinful,  appears  from  the  following  considerations. 
He  says,  (p.  75,)  "Adam's  sin  does  not  bring  death 
and  condemnation  upon  his  posterity,  they  them- 
selves being  sinless.  None  of  them  suffer  penal 
evil  in  consequence  of  his  sin,  without  being  sinful 
themselves.''^  He  says  also,  (p.  77,)  "we  must  con- 
clude that  among  intelligent  moral  beings,  sin  is 
co-extensive  with  suffering."  The  inference  there- 
fore is,  (and  this  he  insists  on  as  a  ground  of  argu- 
ment,) that  as  infants  suffer  and  die  as  soon  as  born, 
they  come  into  the  world  with  a  sinful,  guilty  char- 
acter. Dr.  Woods  also  in  direct  terms  discards  the 
idea  that  infants  may  suffer  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
without  being  guilty,  by  their  own  act.  That  sin- 
ful depravity  or  disposition  with  which  mankind 
are  born,  he  considers  the  cause  of  all  actual  sin. 
He  speaks  of  "a  period  of  life  which  precedes  any 
sinful  exercises,"  and  of  a  disposition  the  nature  of 
which  is  determined  from  the  nature  of  the  exer- 
cises and  actions  to  which  it  leads.     He  speaks  too 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  225 

Infants  suffer  because  they  are  guilty. 

of  the  absurdity  of  regarding  a  propensity  or  dis- 
position, as  not  partaking  of  the  same  moral  quality 
with  the  transgression  to  which  it  leads ;  and  of 
the  necessity  of  ascribing  the  universal  sinfulness 
of  man  to  an  adequate  cause.  Hence,  it  is  evident 
that  he  regards,  what  he  calls  the  moral  Ukeness  or 
disposition  with  which  mankind  are  born,  as  the 
cause  of  all  their  subsequent  acts  of  transgression. 
More  need  hardly  be  said,  to  evince  that  the  third 
proposition  correctly  exhibits  the  doctrine  of  the 
essay.  This  follows  from  what  has  already  been 
said.  But  a  single  quotation  may  not  be  amiss. 
Dr.  Woods  inquires,  (p.  204,)  '^whether  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam,  by  a  special  divine  constitution, 
are,  in  consequence  of  his  fall,  born  in  a  state  of 
moral  depravity  leading  to  certain  ruin  ;  or,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  law  of  descent,  are  partakers  of 
a  corrupt  nature,  the  offspring  being  like  the  parent ; 
and  whether  suffering  and  death  come  upon  them 
not  as  personally  innocent  and  pure,  but  as  depraved 
and  sinful  beings.  The  affirmative  answer  to  this 
inquiry  he  regards  as  the  orthodox  opinion,  and 
he  declares  himself  at  a  loss  to  know  what  the 
belief  of  those  amounts  to,  who  hold  that  mankind 
are  depraved  and  ruined  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  without  coinciding  in  this  view  of  native  de- 
pravity. It  would  indeed  be  easy  to  interpret  much 
of  Dr.  Woods'  language,  so  as  to  make  him  teach 


226  DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

How  Dr.  Woods  and  the  New  Haven  divines  differ. 

the  doctrine  of  a  depraved  physical  constitution, 
itself  sinful  and  the  cause  of  all  sin  ;  but  when  his 
letters  to  Dr.  Ware  are  considered,  as  well  as  his 
other  writings,  it  is  believed  the  view  which  is  here 
given  of  his  sentiments,  is  that  which  a  candid 
and  just  interpretation  demands.  If  so,  he  agrees 
with  the  New  Haven  divines,  in  making  all  sin 
consist  in  the  transgression  of  known  law,  and  in 
ascribing  the  occasion  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of 
our  race  to  their  connection  with  Adam.  He  dif- 
fers from  them  in  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  cause 
in  man,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  entire 
sinfulness  of  the  race.  He  represents  this  as  a 
propagated,  guilty  moral  state  or  character.  They 
regard  it  as  consisting  in  a  propensity  to  sin,  not 
however  in  itself  sinful  or  deserving  of  punishment, 
but  such  as  in  all  cases  determines  mankind  to  sin 
in  their  first  moral  acts.  He  also  differs  from  them 
in  respect  to  the  moment  of  time  in  which  man- 
kind become  guilty  or  deserving  of  punishment  for 
their  sins.  He  maintains  that  they  are  guilty  of 
sin  the  instant  they  are  born.  They  maintain,  that 
they  sin  as  soon  as  they  can  sin,  and  that  they  no 
sooner  sin,  than  they  fall  under  condemnation  as 
transgressors.  Dr.  Woods,  therefore,  is  wiser  in 
respect  to  the  moral  state  of  infants  than  the  New 
Haven  divines. 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  227 

Sin  evil  and  only  evil. 

Dr.  Woods,  in  this  essay,  while  meeting  the  ob- 
jection that  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity  is  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  benevolence,  reasons  on 
the  supposition  that  the  permission  of  sin  may  be 
incidental  to  the  best  system  possible  to  God.     He 
says,  (p.  128,)  "clearly  God  is  the  guardian  of  the 
interests  of  that  universe  which  he  has  created  and 
which  he  has  destined  to  exist  forever ;  his  benevo- 
lence will  lead  him  to  adopt  those  measures  which 
he  knows  to  be  most  beneficial  to  those  great  inter- 
ests, though  not  beneficial  in  the  highest  conceiva- 
ble degree  to  the  interests  of  a  particular  part."    "  If 
the  highest  welfare  of  the  whole  intelligent  crea- 
tion through  all  ages  to  come  requires  an  arrange- 
ment less  favorable  to  some  part  of  the  creation,  or, 
for  the  present,  less  favorable  to  the  whole,  than 
some  other  arrangement  might  be  ;  that  arrange- 
ment will  certainly  be  chosen  by  a  God  of  love." 
Man's  sinfulness,  in  itself,  he  regards  as  altogether 
and  in  the  highest  degree  undesirable  and  deplora- 
ble.    It  is  only  by  being  overruled  by  the  Almighty 
Governor  of  the  world,  that  it  will  be  the  occasion 
of  promoting  the  blessedness  of  God's  moral  empire. 
Such  language,  taken  in  its  connection,  clearly 
implies  the  possibility  that  God  cannot  prevent  sin 
in  his  moral  universe  without  diminishing  its  bless- 
edness, and  that  sin  itself  is  an  evil  which  he  ab- 
hors, and  which  he  permits  only  because  it  is,  in 


228 


DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 


These  discussions  affect  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

respect  to  divine  prevention,  a  necessary  incident  to 
the  best  morcd  empire ;  a  thing  which  he  so  over- 
rules that  on  the  whole  it  results  in  his  own  glory 
and  in  good  to  the  universe.  If  this  is  Dr.  Woods' 
theory,  how  does  he  differ  on  this  point  from  the 
New  Haven  divines  ?  If  in  any  thing,  it  must  be  in 
this  single  point.  He  perhaps  would  say,  that  a  be- 
nevolent God  chose  the  sin,  which  he  regards  ''  as 
altogether,  and  in  the  highest  degree,  undesirable 
and  deplorable,"  for  the  sake  of  exhibiting  his  own 
perfections  in  bringing  good  out  of  evil ;  and  this, 
when  he  could  have  created  and  governed  a  perfectly 
holy  and  happy  universe,  without  sin.  They  would 
deny  the  truth  of  this  position,  and  maintain  that 
God  may  have  permitted  the  existence  of  sin,  be- 
cause, though  he  regards  it  as  altogether  and  in  the 
highest  degree  undesirable  and  deplorable,  he  pre- 
ferred its  existence  to  the  non-existence  of  the  pre- 
sent system,  which  is  the  best  possible  to  him. 

The  theological  discussions,  an  account  of  which 
has  now  been  given,  were  not  confined  to  New 
England.  They  entered  the  Presbyterian  church 
at  the  beginning,  continued  to  awaken  more  and 
more  interest  in  their  progress,  and  in  the  end,  com- 
bined with  other  causes,  produced  the  explosion 
which  has  shaken  the  whole  fabric  of  Presbyteri- 
anism  in  the  United  States.     The  rapidity  with 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  229 

Alledged  prevalence  of  New  Haven  views. 

which,  if  the  testimony  of  Old  School  men  may  be 
credited,  the  views  of  the  New  Haven  divines  spread 
in  that  commmiion,  can  hardly  be  accounted  for, 
without  supposing  some  peculiar  preparation  of  mind 
for  their  reception.  The  controversial  writings  of 
New  England  were,  indeed,  widely  circulated 
amongst  its  ministers;  its  own  publications  more 
or  less  entered  into  the  controversy ;  and  some  of 
high  standing  and  influence  in  it,  both  clergy  and 
laity,  early  favored  these  sentiments.  By  the  Old 
School  party,  they  were  denounced  and  warmly 
opposed,  and  this  had  the  elFect  to  turn  public  at- 
tention to  them,  and  magnify  their  importance. 
The  judicial  proceedings  also,  which  have  been  as- 
signed as  one  principal  cause  of  the  measures  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837,  came  in  as  a  means  of 
further  enlisting  the  feelings  of  the  christian  com- 
munity. These  things  exerted  a  combined  influ- 
ence, favorable  to  the  spread  of  the  theology  of 
common  sense  and  the  bible.  But  all  these  con- 
siderations seem  scarcely  suflicient  to  account  for 
the  extensive  prevalence,  in  so  short  a  time,  of 
views  pronounced  by  many  high  in  station  and  in- 
fluence, to  be  heretical  and  dangerous.  May  there 
not  have  been  a  peculiar  preparation  of  mind  for 
such  a  result,  occasioned  by  the  benevolent  opera- 
tions of  the  day  ;  by  an  increased  attention  to  the 
word  of  God  and  less  regard  to  technical  theology, 
20 


230  DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 

Mr.  Lord's  "Views  in  Theology." — Against  physical  depravity. 

in  consequence  of  the  great  increase  of  biblical  in- 
struction ;  and  by  the  revivals  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, which  have  turned  the  thoughts  of  ministers 
from  theological  systems  to  the  practical  truths  of 
Christianity,  and  to  the  best  modes  of  explanation 
in  order  to  vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to  man  ? 

It  seems  proper,  before  concluding  this  chapter, 
to  bestow  a  few  passing  remarks  upon  one  publica- 
tion, of  a  periodical  character,  which  for  a  num- 
ber of  yesirs  was  issued  in  New  York,  and  proving 
unsalable,  was  gratuitously  circulated  among  min- 
isters. The  work  referred  to  is  entitled  "Views 
in  Theology,"  and  proceeded  from  Mr.  David  N. 
Lord,  a  merchant  in  New  York,  who  was  once  a 
licensed  preacher  of  the  gospel.  It  is  difficult  to 
determine  what  amount  of  influence,  if  any,  this 
periodical  exerted  upon  the  results  of  the  contro- 
versy in  question ;  but  as  its  author  afterwards  be- 
came a  leading  patron  of  the  party  in  Connecticut 
which  opposed  the  New  Haven  divines,  it  is  well 
just  to  show,  what  theological  opinions  he  has,  at 
different  times,  condemned  and  advocated.  Mr. 
Lord  first  attacked  the  doctrine  of  physical  deprav- 
ity ;  arraigned  the  great  body  of  divines,  from  John 
Calvin  down  to  Dr.  Griffin,  as  guilty  of  teaching 
this  error ;  and  himself  advocated  the  sentiment, 
that  nothing  which  pertains  to  the  constitution  of 
man,  "  constitutes  a  tendency  to  sin,"  or  "  forms 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  231 

Against  creeds  and  physical  regeneration. 

any  more  certainty  or  probability  that  he  will  exer- 
cise that  species  of  actions  which  is  evil,  than  that 
which  is  morally  excellent^*  He  next  condemned 
the  doctrine,  that  "  God  prefers  sin  to  holiness  in 
its  stead,"  and  maintained  the  position,  that  God 
in  all  instances  prefers  that  men  should  yield  obe- 
dience, and  that  it  is  best  that  they  should  obey  in 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  act.f 

Another  subject  that  underwent  his  animadver- 
sion, was  "  the  doctrines  of  the  Princeton  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  respecting  creeds  and  confessions." 
Dr.  Spring's  Dissertation  on  the  means  of  Regene- 
ration also  called  forth  an  article,  in  which  he 
charged  the  author  and  others  with  teaching,  con- 
trary to  the  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God,  that  "  the 
Holy  Spirit  regenerates  the  mind  by  an  immediate 
or  physical  agency,  wholly  exclusive  of  the  instru- 
mentality of  moral  means.  "J  In  other  articles,  Ed- 
wards, the  Christian  Advocate,  and  the  Biblical 
Repertory,  were  severally  convicted  of  inculcating 
erroneous  views  on  the  subject  of  depravity,  while 
the  views  of  Professor  Fitch  on  the  same  subject 
were  highly  applauded,  and  those  of  Dr.  Taylor 
censured,  only  on  the  following  grounds :  that  he 
attributes  the  cause  of  all  sin  to  the  nature  of  man- 
kind, "  in  contradistinction  to  the  moral  influence 

*  No.  I,  p.  56.  t  No.  II,  p.  19.  I  No.  V,  p.  7. 


232 


DR.    SPRING     AND     DR.    WOODS 


Controversy  between  Mr.  Nettleton  and  Mr.  Finney. 

exerted  on  them,"  and  maintains  that  no  change  in 
their  appropriate  circumstances  will  prevent  their 
sinning  ;  and  that  he  represents  that  a  disposition 
or  bias  to  sin,  exists  in  the  nature  of  man  antece- 
dently to  the  commencement  of  his  agency,  which 
is  the  cause  of  his  becoming  a  sinner.  As  Mr.  Lord 
advanced  in  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  he  left  Ed- 
wards, and  Hopkins,  and  Dwight,  and  others,  with 
their  "physical  depravity,"  and  "sin  the  necessary 
means  of  the  greatest  good,"  and  commenced,  with 
great  violence,  a  warfare  against  Dr.  Taylor  and 
the  writers  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  who  hap- 
pened to  go  counter  to  some  of  his  own  opinions. 
They  stood  the  shock,  silent  and  unresisting ;  and 
the  assailant,  in  due  time,  appeared  in  the  ranks  of 
their  opponents  in  Connecticut. 

There  is  yet  another  fact,  of  some  weight,  as  con- 
nected with  the  causes  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ments in  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  with  topics 
soon  to  be  brought  into  view,  which  having  remain- 
ed unnoticed,  may  properly  be  referred  to  in  this 
place.  The  controversy  between  the  Rev.  Asahel 
Nettleton  and  the  Rev.  Charles  G.  Finney,  in  regard 
to  new  measures,  will  be  recollected  by  all.  Much 
feeling  was  elicited  at  the  time,  and  afterwards, 
"  new  measures"  became  a  kind  of  watchword  with 
a  certain  class  of  men  in  New  England.  The  stigma 
of  "new  measure  men,"  was  attempted  to  be  fixed 


ON     NATIVE     DEPRAVITY.  233 

New  measures. 

upon  those  who  would  not  come  out  and  pubUcly 
condemn  Mr.  Finney,  and  take  sides  in  the  contro- 
versy against  him.  As  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  friends 
did  not  care  to  do  this,  in  a  body,  they  were  repre- 
sented as  '-'new  measure  men,"  and  pains  were 
taken  to  identify  them  with  Mr.  Finney  and  his 
supporters  in  the  Presbyterian  charch.  A  potent 
charm  for  some  minds  was  found  to  exist  in  the 
sound  of  words,  to  bring  about  a  union  between 
the  opposers  of  New  Haven  and  the  opposers  of 
what  were  called  "  new  measures"  in  the  Avest. 
Changes  were  rung  on  "■  New  Haven  theology," 
"Finneyism,"  ^^new  measures,"  and  "spurious  re- 
vivals," till,  by  the  laws  of  mental  association,  many 
believed  merely  because  they  had  heard  it  so  often 
with  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  what  was  destitute  of 
all  evidence.  How  much  effect  was  produced  in 
the  south  with  these  magic  words,  by  the  professor 
elect,  who  was  at  first  engaged  in  the  controversy 
on  the  subject,  in  his  long  and  mysterious  journey- 
ings  in  that  land  of  promise,  it  may  now  be  diffi- 
cult to  determine. 


20* 


234 


CHAPTER   XX. 

MEASURES    IN    CONNECTICUT    TO    SUPPRESS 
NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS. 

Meeting  to  organize  a  Doctrinal  Tract  Society. 

The  history  of  the  doctrinal  discussions  in  New 
England,  in  its  general  outlines,  being  concluded, 
it  remains  to  give  some  account  of  the  measures 
adopted  in  Connecticut,  by  the  opposers  of  what 
has  been  called  ''  New  Haven  Theology,"  for  the 
purpose  of  arresting  the  progress  of  reputed  error. 
It  will  be  necessary  in  doing  this,  to  go  back  in  the 
order  of  time  to  the  12th  of  October,  1831,  when  a 
select  meeting  of  invited  ministers  was  held  at  Nor- 
wich, with  the  professed  design  of  organizing  a 
Doctrinal  Tract  Society,  to  act  in  defense  of  the 
so  called  orthodoxy  of  the  state.  The  place  of  this 
meeting  was  but  half  a  mile  distant  from  that  in 
which  the  Consociation  of  New  London  county 
held  its  session,  which  was  adjourned  at  noon  of  the 
same  day ;  and  yet  so  profound  was  the  secrecy 
observed  respecting  the  whole  movement,  that  more 
than  two  months  elapsed  before  the  uninitiated 
members  of  the  Consociation,  were  apprized  of  the 
fact  that  such  a  meeting  was  held ;  and  then  it  was 


MEASURES,    «&C.  235 

Object  of  the  Evangelical  Magazine. 

disclosed  only  through  the  inadvertence  of  one  who 
attended  it.  The  result  of  this  meeting  was  the 
organization  of  the  contemplated  society,  and  the 
adoption  of  a  constitution,  one  article  of  which  was, 
that  all  members,  in  future  admitted,  should  be 
nominated  by  a  committee  and  elected  by  the  so- 
ciety. From  the  consultations  and  measures  of  this 
meeting  originated  a  new  publication,  called  the 
Evangelical  Magazine,  which  was  commenced  in 
July,  1832.  The  object  of  this  periodical,  which 
was  continued  four  years,  and  then  superseded  by 
the  Hartford  Watchman,  though  not  highly  bel- 
ligerent in  its  character,  was  to  oppose  the  views  of 
the  New  Haven  divines,  and  advocate  the  senti- 
ments of  their  opponents.  It  reviewed,  with  un- 
qualified approbation,  the  essays  of  Dr.  Spring  and 
Dr.  Woods  on  native  depravity,  and  contended  for 
sinful  depravity  from  the  moment  of  birth.  It  also 
reviewed  with  like  approbation  the  letters  of  Dr. 
Lee,  and  the  work  of  Dr.  Griffin  on  Divine  Effi- 
ciency. On  the  permission  of  sin,  it  supported  the 
views  of  Dr.  Tyler  and  Dr.  Woods,  in  opposition 
to  the  theory  which  they  attributed  to  the  New 
Haven  divines. 

The  same  year,  "Letters  on  the  present  state 
and  probable  results  of  Theological  speculations  in 
Connecticut,"  by  one  styling  himself  an  Edward- 
eauj  made  their  appearance.     This  pamphlet,  with 


236         MEASURES    IN     CONNECTICUT, 

Letters  of  "  An  Edwardean." 

another  that  followed  it  the  next  year,  styled,  "  An 
Address  to  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Con- 
necticut, by  an  Observer,"  have  been  commonly, 
and  no  doubt  correctly,  ascribed  to  Dr.  Harvey,  the 
present  Editor  of  the  Hartford  Watchman,  who 
published  in  his  paper  of  June  24th,  1837,  that  the 
former  ''pamphlet  was  read  in  manuscript  to  a 
meeting  of  some  eight  or  ten  leading  orthodox  min- 
isters of  Connecticut,  and  by  them  unanimously 
approved,  before  its  pubhcation ;"  and  that  both 
"  were  published  by  the  express  approbation  of  lead- 
ing orthodox  ministers  of  that  State."  Whoever 
these  "  leading  orthodox  ministers  "  were,  it  is  now 
too  late  to  expect  that  they  will  claim  the  honor  of 
giving  counsel  in  this  matter.  The  Letters  of  "  An 
Edwardean,"  want  even  the  name  of  the  printer, 
and  of  the  place  of  publication.  In  this  pamphlet, 
it  was  proclaimed  to  the  world  in  unqualified  terms, 
''  that  Dr.  Taylor  arid  others  were  verging  to  Pela- 
gianism,"  and  that  "  the  system  advocated  by  him 
is  Arminian  in  its  tendencies,  and  decidedly  Armin- 
ian,  in  all  who  come  under  its  influence."  The 
establishment  of  the  Theological  department  of 
Yale  College,  was  ascribed  to  a  design  to  propagate 
heretical  opinions  ;  and  it  was  attempted  to  cast  on 
the  Professor  of  Didactic  Theology,  the  odium  of 
disturbing  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  churches. 
It  was  predicted,  that  if  our  theological  affairs  go 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.       237 

Letters  of  "  An  Edwardean." 

on  as  they  have  for  ten  years  past,  Congregational- 
ism in  Connecticut  will  be  rent  in  twain,  no  more 
to  be  united ;  and  that  the  question,  who  will  abide 
by  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  must  be  decided  by  a 
separation  from  all  who  seek  its  subversion.  ''  Noth- 
ing," says  the  writer,  "can  be  more  certain  than  a 
separation  of  the  Congregational  churches  of  Con- 
necticut, if  the  present  state  of  things  continues 
much  longer.  This  is  unavoidable,  if  the  friends 
of  Dr.  Taylor  insist  on  obtruding  upon  us,  him  and 
his  doctrines.  Acquiescence  in  his  theology  is  ut- 
terly out  of  the  question,  and  the  crisis  is  rapidly 
approaching,  when  there  wall  be  a  final  division  of 
the  churches  and  ecclesiastical  bodies  in  this  State. 
And  if  Yale  College  continues  to  be  environed  with 
this  influence,  the  friends  of  sound  doctrine  in  the 
State,  will  soon  seek  other  seminaries  for  their  chil- 
dren, and  Yale  will  become  in  Connecticut  what 
Harvard  is  in  Massachusetts."*  This  pamphlet, 
with  all  its  misrepresentations  of  the  views  of  Dr. 
Taylor  and  his  friends,  and  with  all  its  bitterness 
and  denunciation,  was  not  without  effect.  It  in- 
creased jealousies  and  suspicions  at  home,  and  gave 
cm-rency  abroad,  to  the  widely  circulated  rumors  of 
heresy,  and  an  extensive  and  lamentable  defection 
among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Connecticut. 

*  Page  41. 


238       MEASURES     IN     CONNECTICUT, 

Hartford  Convention. 

Though  it  was  without  any  responsible  name,  and 
none  except  those  in  the  secret  could  tell  whence 
it  issued,  yet  it  was  adduced  in  a  far  distant  church 
judicatory,  as  evidence  against  a  distinguished  min- 
ister, whose  character  it  aspersed. 

A  second  meeting  of  the  self-styled  orthodox  was 
convened  in  Hartford  on  the  8th  of  January,  1833, 
by  letters  missive  of  several  months'  previous  date, 
signed  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Harvey,  who  was  "  in- 
structed to  inform"  of  their  appointment,  those 
whose  "  attendance  was  requested."  The  meeting 
was  composed  of  "  a  representation  from  each  dis- 
trict association  in  the  State,"  selected  by  the  lead- 
ers of  the  party  concerned,  and  the  object  was  sta- 
ted by  Mr.  Harvey  to  be,  ''  to  consult  on  measures 
which  it  may  be  proper  and  necessary  to  adopt,  in 
the  present  posture  of  our  theological  concerns." 
The  measures  here  concerted  "  for  the  defense  of 
truth  and  the  suppression  of  heresy,"  were  the 
adoption  of  a  creed,  and  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mittee in  each  of  the  district  Associations,  to  obtain 
signatures  to  it,  with  the  design  of  organizing  what 
was  called  a  district  Pastoral  Union,  within  the 
limits  of  each  Association.  These  were  to  com- 
pose, when  properly  organized,  a  Pastoral  Union 
for  the  State.  This  plan,  however,  it  is  believed, 
proved  a  failure,  as  the  contemplated  Union  was 
not  organized  till  several  months  afterwards,  and 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN   VIEWS.    239 

East  Windsor  Convention. 

in  a  different  manner.     Of  these  proceedings,  the 
great  body  of  ministers  in  Connecticut  were  kept, 
as  much  as   possible,  in  ignorance ;   and  matters 
were  secretly  concocted  for  a  meeting  of  ministers 
to  consider  the  subject  of  establishing  a  new  theo- 
logical institution  in  Connecticut.     When  the  bu- 
siness was  duly  prepared,  this  exparte  convention 
assembled  at  East  Windsor,  on  the  10th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1833 ;   and  so  covertly  was  the  plan  con- 
certed £ind  the  arrangements  made  for  the  meeting, 
that  very  few,  except  those  to  whom  the  subject 
was  confided,  knew  that  such  a  thing  was  pro- 
jected.    Even  the  pastor  of  one  of  the  Congrega- 
tional churches  in  the  town  in  which  the  conven- 
tion was  held,  gained  the  first  knowledge  of  it,  by 
incidentally  passing  the  place  of  its  session.     Not  a 
minister,  friendly  to  the  New  Haven  views,  and 
able  to  state  and  defend  them,  was  on  the  ground  ; 
nor  is  it  known  that  such  a  one  received  an  invita- 
tion to  attend.     Many  of  the  men  who  were  there, 
had  had  their  feelings  strongly  enlisted  in  the  con- 
troversy, and  none,  in  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  were  then  assembled,  were  in  a  state  of  mind 
to  take   a  candid  and  impartial  view  of  things. 
Their  proceedings  of  course,  though  undertaken  no 
doubt  with  a  deep  religious  solemnity,  were  such 
as,  in  other  circumstances,  would  have  presented 
to  them  a  very  different  aspect.     The  meeting  re- 


240        MEASURES     IN    CONNECTICUT, 

Address  by  "  An  Observer." 

suited  in  an  organization,  called  the  Pastoral  Union, 
to  which  members  were  to  be  added  only  by  elec- 
tion ;  and  the  appointment  of  a  Board  of  Trustees, 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  new  theological 
institution.  Such  was  the  origin  of  the  East  Wind- 
sor Institute,  over  which  Dr.  Tyler  was  called  to 
preside,  and  to  fill  the  chair  of  Professor  of  Chris- 
tian Theology. 

Simultaneously  with  the  convention  at  E.  Wind- 
sor, "  The  Address  to  the  Congregational  Churches 
of  Connecticut,"  sprung  armed  into  being,  out  of 
the  brain  of  the  same  parent  whose  legitimate  off- 
spring has  just  been  contemplated,  in  "  The  Letters 
by  an  Edwardean."  These  two  productions  were 
^ar  nohile  sororum,  though  the  younger  much  ex- 
ceeded the  elder,  in  its  boldness  of  attack  and  reck- 
less disregard  of  consequences.  In  this  the  writer 
assumed  a  still  more  undaunted  tone,  and  called 
more  loudly  than  in  the  first,  for  a  separation  of  the 
churches.  He  not  only  set  forth  the  "  new  divin- 
ity" in  a  most  alarming  attitude,  but  threw  upon 
those  who  favored  it,  the  responsibility  of  ^'  new 
measures,"  spurious  revivals,  and  a  train  of  evil  con- 
sequences, that  threatened  moral  desolation  to  the 
land.  He  threw  out  the  insinuation  of  artifice  and 
dishonesty,  against  the  advocates  of  the  New  Haven 
sentiments ;  censured  the  churches  for  their  apathy 
on  the  subject  of  the  alledged  errors,-  and  ccdled 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.    241 
Theological  Institute  founded. 

on  the  professors  in  Yale  College,  who  entertained 
these  views,  to  resign  their  places.  He,  indeed, 
denounced  the  College,  and  attempted  to  dissuade 
parents  from  sending  their  sons  for  education  to  that 
institution.  He  advised  the  churches  no  longer  to 
depend  on  its  theological  department  for  a  supply 
of  pastors,  and  urged  an  entire  and  immediate  sepa- 
ration of  all  the  "orthodox,"  from  ''those  infected 
with  new  divinity  and  new  measures."  This  pam- 
phlet found  few  in  Connecticut,  whose  jealousy  and 
party  zeal  ran  high  enough  to  give  it  countenance. 
Men  of  moderation  and  candor  generally,  regarded 
it  with  disapprobation.  It  was  considered  as  evi- 
dence of  a  design,  on  the  part  of  some,  to  rend  the 
churches  asunder.  It  thus  brought  up  the  momen- 
tous question.  What  is  the  value  of  the  union  ?  and 
excited  the  feeling,  It  is  best  to  stop  and  consider 
consequences.  Reflection,  once  awakened,  perform- 
ed its  office,  and  inclined  the  great  body  of  ministers 
to  forbearance  and  peace.  Thus  the  object  of  the 
pamphlet  was  in  a  great  measure  defeated. 

On  the  13th  of  May,  1834,  the  corner  stone  of 
the  building  for  the  Seminary  at  East  Windsor  was 
laid,  and  the  president  and  professor  of  ecclesias- 
tical history  were  inducted  into  office.  The  inau- 
gural address  of  the  President,  and  the  other  ad- 
dresses on  the  occasion,  contained  allusions  to  the 
reputed  errors  of  New  Haven,  as  the  ground  of  es- 
21 


242    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Theological  Institute  patronized  in  New  York. 

tablishing  the  Institute.  "  That  the  speculations 
to  which  I  have  aUuded,"  says  Dr.  Tyler,  "  are  of 
dangerous  tendency,  is  our  honest  beUef.  It  is  our 
solemn  conviction,  that  they  tend  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  the  gospel,  and  that  if  not  checked  in  their 
progress,  they  will  lead  to  fundamental  error.  In 
this  we  may  be  deceived ;  but  while  these  are  our 
convictions,  we  cannot  but  regard  with  deep  concern, 
the  efforts  which  are  made  to  disseminate  these 
views  ;  nor  can  we  with  a  good  conscience  lend  our 
influence  to  promote  their  dissemination."* 

An  important  step  had  now  been  taken  by  Dr.  Ty- 
ler and  his  party  in  Connecticut.  The  Rubicon  was 
passed,  and  the  friends  of  the  new  Seminary  were 
committed  before  the  public,  to  sustain  their  cause. 
Numbers  were  already  enlisted  on  their  side  in  New 
England,  and  from  various  causes,  some  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church  were  strongly  enlisted  in  their  fa- 
vor. In  the  city  of  New  York,  they  found  a  num- 
ber of  influential  supporters  and  liberal  patrons, 
without  whose  aid  their  project  would  probably  nev- 
er have  been  undertaken;  or  if  attempted,  would 
have  failed  of  being  accomplished.  Among  these 
were  Dr.  Spring,  who  had  himself  been  engaged  to 
some  extent  in  the  controversy  ;  some  members  of 
his  church  ;  and  especially,  Mr.  David  N.  Lord,  who 

*  Inaugural  Address,  page  20. 


TO     SUPPRESS    NEW     HAVEN    VIEWS.    243 


How  the  Institute  should  be  regarded. 


in  his  "  Views  of  Theology,"  had  at  first  fought  so 
hard  ao-ainst  some  of  the  very  doctrines  which  were 
controverted  by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  which  brought  the 
East  Windsor  Institute  into  existence.  By  various 
means,  considerable  impression  was  made  in  that 
city,  in  favor  of  the  new  Seminary.  From  differ- 
ent sources,  sufficient  patronage  was  received  to  en- 
courage the  trustees  to  prosecute  the  enterprise,  and 
in  May,  1834,  the  Institute  nominally  went  into  op- 
eration. In  May,  1835,  the  trustees  reported  sixteen 
students;  and  the  number  on  the  catalogue  has 
since  been  increased  to  thirty-six.  In  May,  1837, 
the  trustees  reported  the  sum  of  thirty-one  thousand 
seven  hundred  dollars,  contributed  in  money  to  the 
funds  of  the  Institution ;  besides  donations  to  the 
Ubrary,  and  articles  of  furniture  and  clothing  for 
the  use  of  the  students. 

This  sum  has  been  gathered  from  numerous 
churches  and  individuals,  and  contains  the  widow's 
mite  of  twenty-five  cents,  as  well  as  the  contribu- 
tions of  the  more  wealthy.  Whether  it  has  been 
expended  in  the  best  manner  possible  for  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  good  of  mankind  ;  and  whether  the 
talents  and  energies  of  the  men,  who  compose  the 
faculty  of  the  institution,  and  of  others  whose  la- 
bors are  devoted  in  different  ways  to  the  same  gen- 
eral cause,  are  employed  in  a  manner  to  advance, 
in  the  highest  possible  degree,  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 


244    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Mr.  Dow's  report  to  the  Corporation  of  Yale  College. 

are  questions  which  different  individuals,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  will  decide  differently  ;  but  they  will  be 
correctly  decided  at  the  judgment  of  the  great  day. 
That  the  East  Windsor  Institute  was  needed,  for 
increasing  the  facilities  of  theological  education, 
with  Bangor,  and  Andover,  and  New  Haven,  and 
Princeton,  and  Auburn  in  view,  it  is  difficult  to  be- 
lieve ;  and  that  the  cause  of  truth  demanded  it, 
will  not,  it  is  presumed,  be  the  judgment  of  posterity. 
That  those  who  established  it  regarded  the  meas- 
ure as  "  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good," 
cannot  be  questioned ;  and  those  who  regard  it  as  an 
"  evil  all  things  considered,"  can  yet  unite  with 
them  in  praying,  "  that  God  will  overrule  it  for  his 
own  glory,"  and  the  advancement  of  the  Redeem- 
er's kingdom. 

In  April,  1834,  Rev.  Daniel  Dow  and  Rev.  Abel 
McEwen,  members  of  the  corporation  of  Yale  Col- 
lege, attended  as  a  committee  appointed  for  this  pur- 
pose, the  examination  of  the  students  in  the  theo- 
logical department.  Mr.  McEwen  prepared  and 
signed  a  report  to  the  corporation,  which  met  in  the 
succeeding  August,  commending  in  general  terms 
the  examination  which  he  had  witnessed.  In  this 
Mr.  Dow  refused  to  concur,  and  presented  a  sepa- 
rate report  to  the  corporation,  in  which  he  expressed 
his  cheerful  concurrence  with  the  statements  of  his 
colleague,  in  part ;  but  said,  "  it  appeared,  that  in 


TO    SUPPRESS     NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.    245 
Statement  of  Professors  in  the  Theological  Department. 

the  branches  of  moral  philosophy  and  theology,  the 
doctrines  which  are  taught  and  inculcated  in  this 
department  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  articles 
of  faith  on  which  this  College  was  founded,  and  are 
equally  repugnant  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  To  un- 
derstand what  the  objectionable  sentiments  are,  ref- 
erence may  be  had  to  what  the  professors  have  pub- 
licly preached,  and  also  exhibited  in  the  volumes  of 
the  Christian  Spectator." 

On  the  presentation  of  this  report,  the  corporation 
appointed  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  usage  of 
the  institution  respecting  assent  to  articles  of  faith ; 
and  invited  the  professors  of  the  theological  depart- 
ment to  a  conference  on  the  subject  thus  brought 
before  them.  At  this  conference,  the  D wight  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology,  against  whom  the  charges  were 
particularly  directed,  exhibited  his  views  at  large 
on  various  points  of  doctrine,  and  made  a  statement 
respecting  an  assent  to  articles  of  faith  in  the  insti- 
tution. The  committee  appointed  by  the  trustees 
also  made  report,  confirming  the  statement  of  Dr. 
Taylor  ;  and  from,  these  two  documents  the  follow- 
ing facts  are  gathered.  An  assent  to  a  religious  for- 
mulary in  Yale  College  was  first  required  in  1722, 
at  which  time  the  confession  of  faith  in  the  Say- 
brook  Platform  was  adopted,  and  the  officers  elect 
were  required  to  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  their 
belief  in  the  system  of  doctrine  therein  contained. 
21* 


246    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Usage  of  the  College  respecting  assent  to  articles  of  Faith. 

In  1753,  owing  to  the  religious  controversies  then 
existing  in  consequence  of  the  preaching  of  White- 
field  and  others,  the  officers  and  trustees  of  the  Col- 
lege were  required  to  declare  their  belief  in  the  As- 
sembly's Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith,  for  all 
the  sentiments  thei^ein  contained.  In  1778,  on  the 
accession  of  President.  Stiles,  who  could  not  give 
his  assent  to  the  Saybrook  Platform  in  the  unquali- 
fied sense  which  the  existing  laws  required,  the 
form  was  changed,  and  he  simply  signed  the  fol- 
lowing declaration :  "  I  do  hereby  give  my  assent 
to  the  confession  of  faith  and  rules  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the  churches  of  this  state, 
in  the  year  1708." 

This  form  of  subscription,  under  the  circum- 
stances in  which  it  was  made,  must  be  understood 
to  be  for  substance  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Platform.  When  Dr.  Dwight  came  into  office  in 
1795,  after  a  free  conference  with  the  Corporation 
respecting  his  theological  opinions,  he  gave  the 
same  assent,  and  always  explained  it  to  be  for  sub- 
stance of  doctrine.  The  Dwight  Professor  of  Di- 
dactic Theology,  in  1822,  signed  the  declaration  in 
the  established  sense,  and  also  presented  to  the  Cor- 
poration the  following  creed,  which  was  accepted 
by  them  as  showing,  satisfactorily,  his  substantial 
agreement  in  doctrine,  with  the  Saybrook  Platform. 


TO     SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.     247 
Dr.  Taylor's  creed,  presented  to  the  Corporation  in  1822. 

''  I  believe  in  one  only  living  and  true  God,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  who  is  a 
Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his 
being,  power,  knowledge,  wisdom,  hohness,  jus- 
tice, goodness,  and  truth ;  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all 
his  intelligent  creatures  to  worship  him  in  spirit 
and  in  truth ;  that  he  created  all  things ;  that  he 
preserves  and  governs  all  his  creatures,  and  over- 
rules all  their  actions  for  his  own  glory ;  and  that 
while  all  the  actions  of  men,  with  all  the  events 
of  his  providence,  ultimately  subserve  his  wise  de- 
signs, man  is  a  free  agent,  and  justly  accountable 
for  all  his  actions. 

"  I  believe,  that  God  created  man  upright,  that 
our  first  parents  freely  sinned  and  fell,  and  thai  all 
their  posterity  come  into  the  w^orld  in  such  a  state, 
that  without  the  renewing  grace  of  God,  they  con- 
tinually sin  in  all  their  moral  actions,  and  are  justly 
exposed  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  and  to  end- 
less punishment  in  the  world  to  come. 

"  I  believe,  that  God  in  his  mercy  has  not  left 
all  mankind  to  perish  forever,  but  out  of  his  mere 
good  pleasure  has  chosen  some  to  everlasting  life  ; 
and  that  he  will  deliver  them  from  sin  and  miser}'-, 
and  bring  them  into  a  state  of  salvation  by  a  Re- 
deemer. 

"I  believe,  that  the  only  Redeemer  of  men,  is 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  God  and  man,  and 


248    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 


Dr.  Taylor's  creed,  presented  to  the  Corporation  in  1822. 

that  in  our  nature  he  suffered  and  died  on  the  cross  ; 
that  he  arose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  where  he  ever  hveth  to  make  intercession 
for  them  that  beheve ;  that  he  alone  has  made 
atonement  for  sin,  and  that  without  an  interest  in 
that  atonement,  there  is  no  salvation. 

"  I  believe,  that  without  a  change  of  heart, 
wrought  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is 
God,  no  one  can  be  an  heir  of  eternal  life  ;  and  that 
the  soul  that  is  once  made  partaker  of  his  renewing 
grace,  will  never  be  permitted  so  to  fall  away  as 
finally  to  perish. 

^'  I  believe,  that  there  will  be  a  general  resurrec- 
tion of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  and  a  general 
judgment,  at  which  all  the  righteous  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  everlasting  happiness,  and  eJI  the  wicked 
sentenced  to  misery  without  end. 

"  I  believe,  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
are  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament.  . 

"I  believe,  that  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  are  the  sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 

The  committee,  after  exhibiting  the  usage  on 
this  subject,  say  "  We  come  then  to  the  conclusion, 
as  one  most  entirely  warranted  by  the  archives  of 
this  institution,  that,  excepting  the  period  from 
1753  to  1758,  it  has  been  an  established  principle, 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.     249 
Proceedings  in  the  Corporation. 

that  the  assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  ques- 
tion, is  to  be  understood  as  only  an  assent  to  '  the 
substance  of  doctrine  therein  contained.'  This 
principle  was  avowed  in  the  churches  of  New  Eng- 
land, so  early  as  1637,  by  the  framers  of  the  Cam- 
bridge Platform  ;  the  same  principle  is  now  adopted 
throughout  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  church- 
es, in  this  and  in  other  countries ;  and  on  no  other 
principle  do  we  believe,  that  any  single  formula  of 
human  devise  and  of  considerable  extent,  could  be 
adopted  by  any  large  number  of  men  and  for  any 
long  period  of  time." 

The  corporation  unanimously  insisted,  that  Mr. 
Dow  "  be  regarded  as  an  accuser  of  the  Professor 
of  Didactic  Theology,  and  proceed  to  support  the 
charges  against  him  contained  in  his  report,  unless 
the  report  be  withdrawn.  Mr.  Dow  urged  a  delay 
for  a  year,  that  he  might  prepare  and  substantiate 
his  charges.  Every  facility  and  assistance  requisite 
to  proceed  immediately,  if  he  was  so  disposed,  were 
offered  him;  and  the  corporation  "voted,  That 
Mr.  Dow  be  requested  to  inform  the  board,  whether 
he  intended  to  prepare  charges  against  Dr.  Taylor, 
as  contained  in  his  report,  or  whether  he  voluntarily 
withdraws  the  report,  and  is  satisfied  that  there  is 
no  foundation  for  those  charges,  or  for  any  other, 
going  to  disqualify  him  for  his  place  as  Professor  of 
Didactic  Theology."     Mr.  Dow  replied  to  this  vote 


250  MEASURES     IN     CONNECTICUT, 

Mr.  Dow  withdraws  his  report. 

as  follows  :  "  I  withdraw  the  report  which  I  laid 
before  the  corporation;  and  would  farther  state, 
that  on  the  ground  of  explanations  given  by  the 
corporation  of  what  subscriptions  to  articles  of  faith 
the  laws  of  college  require,  no  charges  are  preferred 
against  the  Didactic  Professor."  Mr.  Dow  pubUsh- 
ed  in  the  Connecticut  Observer,  an  explanation,  in 
which  he  designed  to  vindicate  his  course  on  this 
subject,  and  soon  after  gave  to  the  public  his  pamph- 
let, entitled  "  New  Haven  Theology,  alias  Taylor- 
ism,  alias  Neology,"  consisting  of  garbled  extracts 
from  different  writers  of  the  New  Haven  views,  in- 
terlarded with  his  own  expositions  of  their  senti- 
ments.* 

After  these  proceedings  in  the  corporation  of  Yale 
College,  the  professors  of  the  theological  depart- 
ment laid  ouf  the  result  before  the  pubhc.  In  their 
"  statement,"  they  express  their  full  and  unquali- 
fied belief  of  the  following  doctrines. 

"  The  entire  depravity  and  ruin  of  mankind  by 
nature  as  the  result  of  the  sin  of  Adam ; — 

Justification  by  faith  through  the  atonement  of 
Christ  to  the  exclusion  of  all  merit  in  the  recipi- 
ent;— 

The  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  special  or 
distinguishing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; — 

*  Mr.  Dow  is  a  member  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  Theo« 
logical  Institute. 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.    251 

What  doctrines  the  Professors  maintain. 

The  eternal  and  personal  election  of  a  part  of  our 
race  to  holiness  and  salvation  ; — and 

The  final  perseverance  of  all  who  are  thus  chosen 
unto  eternal  life."  The  professors  then  say,  that 
these,  taken  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  of  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  finally 
impenitent ;  and  of  the  divine  decrees  and  election, 
constitute  the  primary  doctrines  of  the  reformation, 
and  that  all  of  these  doctrines  receive  their  unqual- 
ified assent.  Some  of  the  secondary  or  explanato- 
ry doctrines,  found  in  the  writings  of  the  reformers, 
are  the  following :  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
to  all  his  descendants,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make 
them  guilty  and  punished  in  the  operation  of  strict 
justice  on  account  of  his  act ; — 

The  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  the 
believer,  as  the  ground  of  his  participating  on  the 
same  principles  of  strict  justice  in  the  benefits  of  his 
death ; — 

The  doctrine  of  particular  redemption,  or  the 
limitation  of  the  atonement  to  the  elect ; — 

The  doctrine  of  man's  entire  want  of  power  to 
any  but  sinful  actions,  as  accounting  for  his  depend- 
ence on  God  for  a  change  of  heart,  &c. 

These  secondary  or  explanatory  doctrines  have 
always  been  subjects  of  free  discussion,  among  New 
England  divines ;  and  however  strongly  the  feel- 
ings of  those  entertaining  different  views  in  respect 


252        MEASURES     IN     CONNECTICUT, 

Doctrines  which  they  disclaim. 

to  them,  have  at  times  been  engaged,  they  have 
yielded  at  last  to  sentiments  of  confidence  and  af- 
fection. 

The  professors  then  disclaim  certain  opinions 
which  have  been  frequently  charged  upon  them. 
They  say, 

"  We  do  not  maintain,  nor  do  any  of  our  senti- 
ments imply  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will. 
We  do  maintain,  however,  that  man  is  truly  an 
agent,  though  not  on  that  account  the  less  depend- 
ent on  his  Maker ;  and  we  see  no  alternative  but 
this  doctrine,  or  Pantheism. 

'-  We  do  not  deny,  but  on  the  contrary  maintain 
that  there  is  a  tendency  to  sin  in  the  nature  of  man. 
We  do  not  suppose  it  however  to  be  a  specific  con- 
stitutional propensity  like  hunger  or  thirst ;  but  £is 
Edwards  states,  a  general  tendency  to  selfish  and 
vicious  indulgences." 

"We  do  not  maintain,  (as  injuriously  charged,) 
that  sin  consists  in  a  mere  mistake  as  to  the  means 
of  happiness,  and  that  regeneration  is  the  correction 
of  that  mistake.  We  hold  that  sin  is  seated,  not  in 
the  understanding,  but  in  the  heart  or  will ;  and 
consists  in  voluntary  opposition  to  God,  and  prefer- 
ence of  inferior  objects,  in  defiance  of  known  in- 
terest and  duty.  And  we  maintain,  that  the  change 
in  regeneration  is  a  radical  change  in  the  supreme 
affections  of  the  hearty  or  settled  purpose  of  the  will, 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.     253 

Doctrines  which  they  disclaim. 

which  constitutes,  we  believe,  what  is  meant  by 
moral  disposition." 

"  We  do  not  hold  that  the  Spirit  in  regeneration 
acts  merely  by  presenting  the  truth  ;  but  we  believe 
that  he  operates  on  the  mind  itself ,  in  some  un- 
known manner,  though  in  perfect  consistency  with 
the  moral  nature  of  this  change. 

"  We  do  not  deny,  but  affirm,  that  God  wills  or 
purposes  the  existence  of  sin,  and  overrules  moral 
evil  for  the  advancement  of  his  glory.  We  do  in- 
deed deny,  (on  the  ground  of  his  sincerity  as  a  law- 
giver,) that  He  ever  prefers  sin  to  holiness  in  its 
stead.  We  maintain  therefore  that  in  choosing  the 
existence  of  sin  he  must  do  it  in  preference  to  some- 
thing else  than  holiness ;  and  that  this  something 
else  may  he  '  the  non-existence  of  the  best  moral 
system.' 

"  We  have  never  affirmed  that  God  could  not 
exclude  sin  from  a  moral  universe.  We  have  sim- 
ply denied,  that  he  decreed  its  existence,  as  essen- 
tial to  the  perfection  of  our  system ; — or,  £is  '  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good.'  When 
pressed  with  the  inquiry,  on  what  other  ground  he 
could  have  permitted  it,  we  have  stated  as  a  possi- 
ble supposition,  that  sin,  (as  to  God's  prevention,) 
may  have  been  a  necessary  incident  to  the  existence 
of  a  moral  system." 

22 


254    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

They  protest  against  the  charge  of  error. 

The  professors  moreover  declared,  that  they  felt 
themselves  bound  most  solemnly  to  protest  against 
the  assumption,  that  the  department  under  their 
care  had  become  the  seat  of  dangerous  error ;  or 
that  there  was  any  cause,  as  had  been  alledged,  on 
this  ground,  for  the  establishment  of  a  second  the- 
ological seminary.  To  such  an  assumption  they 
opposed  the  decision  of  the  President  and  Fellows 
of  Yale  College  ;  and  the  decision  of  the  very  men 
who  founded  the  new  seminary,  as  given  to  the 
world  in  their  own  creed.  This  instrument  con- 
tains not  a  single  sentiment,  to  which  they  cannot 
give  their  full  and  cordial  assent.  It  neither  rejects 
nor  censures  one  of  those  principles,  which  have 
been  charged  with  a  tendency  to  dangerous  error, 
viz.  that  man  is  truly  an  agent^  with  power  to  the 
contrary  in  every  act  of  choice ;  that  he  has  natu- 
ral susceptibilities,  which  capacitate  him  to  be 
moved  by  the  invitations  of  the  gospel ;  that  he  is 
active,  as  well  as  acted  upon,  in  regeneration  ;  and 
that  God  must  have  decreed  the  existence  of  sin 
for  some  other  reason,  than  his  preferring  it  to  holi- 
ness as  a  means  of  perfecting  his  universe.  Had  it 
been  framed  with  the  intention  of  excluding,  as  un- 
essential, all  the  points  so  long  in  controversy,  it 
could  hardly  have  received  a  better  form  for  the  at- 
tainment of  such  an  end. 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.    255 

Appeal  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute. 

The  "  statement "  of  the  Professors  of  the  Theo- 
logical department  of  Yale  College,  called  forth  ''  An 
Appeal  to  the  Public  in  behalf  of  the  Theological 
Institute  of  Connecticut,"  from  the  Trustees  of  that 
seminary.  The  document  appeared  in  the  Con- 
necticut Courant,  a  political  newspaper,  published 
in  the  city  of  Hartford.  The  principal  grounds  of 
dissatisfaction  with  the  theological  department  of 
Yale  College,  as  stated  by  the  Trustees,  it  is  proper 
here  to  exhibit,  accompanied  by  such  explanations 
as  the  case  requires. 

"  Many  have  hp.ptrt  dissatisfied,"  say  the  Trustees, 
"  that  the  Theological  School  at  New  Haven  has 
no  more  connection  with  the  ministers  and  church- 
es of  the  State.  Being  an  appendage  of  the  Col- 
lege, it  is  under  the  entire  control  of  the  Corpora- 
tion, a  Board,  which,  as  at  present  constituted,  is 
deemed  altogether  unsuitable  to  be  guardians  of  a 
theological  seminary." 

The  theological  department  was  founded  with 
the  advice  of  the  General  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, and  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  design  of 
the  founders  of  Yale  College,  to  provide  the  means 
of  instruction  for  a  succession  of  evangelical  min- 
isters. No  one  educated  in  the  seminary  can  be 
licensed  in  this  State  to  preach  the  gospel,  without 
the  approbation  of  one  of  the  district  iVssociations, 
or  of  a  committee  by  them  appointed ;  and  no  one 


256     MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Grounds  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  Theological  Department. 

can  be  ordained  as  a  pastor  over  any  Congregational 
church,  without  the  action  of  an  ecclesiastical  body, 
duly  constituted  for  that  purpose.  It  is,  therefore, 
entirely  in  the  power  of  the  ministers  of  Connecti- 
cut, to  sanction  or  condemn  the  doctrines  taught  in 
the  seminary,  and  if  they  please,  to  withhold  license 
from  the  students,  and  exclude  them  from  the  min- 
istry. It  is  not  known  that  any  dissatisfaction  ex- 
ists in  regard  to  the  Theological  Seminary  at  An- 
dover,  because  it  is  no  more  connected  with  the 
ministers  and  churches  of  that  State ;  and  why 
should  there  be  any  more  dissatisfaction  with  that 
at  New  Haven  ? 

As  to  the  qualifications  of  the  Corporation  of 
Yale  College  to  be  the  guardians  of  a  theological 
seminary,  it  is  presumed  that  the  clerical  part  are 
as  enlightened  and  experienced,  and  as  "  orthodox  " 
too,  as  any  similar  body  that  could  be  constituted. 
They  consist  of  the  President  of  the  College,  and 
ten  Congregational  ministers  of  Connecticut ;  and 
have  power  to  fill  their  own  vacancies.  They 
thus  constitute  a  permanent  majority  of  the  Board ; 
while  the  other  eight  are  ex-ofiicio  members,  con- 
sisting of  the  governor,  lieutenant  governor,  and 
six  senators,  who  are  annually  chosen  by  the  elec- 
tors of  the  State.  How  such  a  Board  is  "alto- 
gether unsuitable  to  be  the  guardians  of  a  theo- 
logical seminary,"  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive. 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.      257 
Grounds  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  Theological  Department. 


"Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction  with  the 
New  Haven  School,  as  at  present  organized,"  say 
the  trustees,  "is  the  want  of  sufficient  security 
against  the  introduction  of  heresy.  In  regard  to 
three  of  the  theological  professors,  it  is  not  known 
that  they  are  required  to  give  their  assent  to  any 
confession  of  faith,  or  that  the  corporation  are  re- 
quired, or  even  authorized,  to  remove  them  from 
office  for  any  heretical  opinions  whatever."  And 
the  professor  of  didactic  theology  is  only  "required 
to  declare  his  free  assent  to  the  confession  of  faith, 
and  ecclesiastical  discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the 
churches  of  the  State  in  the  year  1708." 

Suppose  no  subscription  to  articles  of  faith,  were 
required  of  any  of  the  professors  of  the  theological 
department  of  Yale  College ;  would  there  not  be 
other  modes,  by  which  the  corporation  could  equally 
well  satisfy  themselves  of  their  theological  views  ? 
Could  not  Paul  know,  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  sound  in  the  faith,  without  requiring  their  sub- 
scription to  a  creed  ?  And  cannot  our  associations 
and  ecclesiastical  councils  know,  that  the  candi- 
dates whom  they  license  or  ordain  are  sound,  mere- 
ly by  their  examination?  Is  not  a  free  inquiry 
respecting  doctrinal  sentiments,  orally  conducted, 
in  fact  a  much  better  method  of  ascertaining  the 
views  of  any  person  in  theology,  than  his  for- 
mal assent  to  a  written  confession  ?  Has  experi- 
22* 


258  MEASURES     IN     CONNECTICUT, 

Their  dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Professors. 

ence  proved,  that  a  subscription  to  articles  of  faith 
is  an  antidote  against  heresy  ?  But  if  the  trustees 
of  the  East  Windsor  Institute  were  ignorant  on  the 
subject,  is  it  not  nevertheless  true,  that  all  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  theological  department  are  required 
to  give  their  assent  to  the  Saybrook  Platform,  in 
the  same  manner  with  President  Dwight  ?  And  as 
it  regards  the  power  of  the  corporation  to  remove 
them  from  office,  why  did  the  trustees  say,  that  it 
is  not  known  that  the  corporation  are  required  or 
were  authorized  to  do  it  ?  Before  making  such  a 
statement  to  the  public,  they  certainly  should  have 
informed  themselves  on  the  subject.  A  little  inqui- 
ry would  have  satisfied  them,  that  the  corporation 
have  unlimited  power  over  the  officers  of  the  insti- 
tution, and  can,  by  a  simple  vote,  remove  any  one 
of  them  from  his  place,  even  without  a  charge  of  her- 
esy or  incompetency.  The  officer  removed  could 
have  no  other  redress,  than  what  would  be  awarded 
by  a  court  of  law,  as  pecuniary  damages  for  the  in- 
jury received. 

"  The  theological  views  maintained  by  the  profes- 
sors," say  the  trustees,  "have  given  great  and  exten- 
sive dissatisfaction.  In  the  first  place^  they  have 
advanced  positions  which  seem  to  us  to  subvert  the 
doctrine  of  divine  decrees.  They  maintain  that 
God  prefers,  all  things  considered^  holiness  to  sin  in 
all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place  ;  and 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN   VIEWS.     259 
Dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Professors. 

that  sin  is  suffered  to  exist,  because  God  could  not 
entirely  prevent  its  existence  in  a  moral  system." 

"  Again,  the  professors  maintain,  that  mankind 
come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind, 
as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created ;  and  that 
the  only  reason  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  do  not 
exhibit  the  same  moral  character  which  Adam  ex- 
hibited, is  not  that  they  have  a  different  nature,  but 
that  they  are  placed  in  different  circumstances." 

"  Again,  the  professors  maintain,  that  self-love  or 
the  desire  of  happiness,  is  the  grand  principle  by 
which  all  moral  beings,  whether  sinful  or  holy,  are 
actuated." 

"  They  maintain,  also,  that  antecedent  to  regene- 
ration, the  selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sin- 
ner's heart,  and  that  prompted  by  self-love,  he  uses 
the  means  of  regeneration  with  motives  which  are 
neither  sinful  nor  holy." 

They  have  also  "advanced  principles,  which 
seem  to  us  to  subvert  the  doctrine  of  the  saints' 
perseverance.  They  say,  free  moral  agents  can  do 
wrong  under  all  possible  preventing  influence ; 
and  how  can  it  be  proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be, 
when  for  aught  that  appears  it  may  be  ?" 

The  trustees  however  say,  "  we  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood,  that  we  do  not  charge  the 
professors  of  admitting  the  consequences  which  we 
have  deduced  from  their  principles ;  but  we  cannot 


260    MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 


Dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Professors. 


conceal  our  solemn  conviction,  that  the  principles 
which  they  have  advanced,  do  necessarily  lead  to 
those  consequences ;  and  that  were  we  to  adopt  them, 
we  should  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  renounce  the 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic  creed." 

Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction,  say  the  trus- 
tees, ''  is  the  great  importance  which  the  professors 
have  attached  to  their  peculiar  views,  and  the  char- 
ges of  dangerous  error  which  they  have  brought 
against  their  brethren."  They  have  charged  their 
brethren  with  having  advanced  theories,  which  lead 
to  the  most  shocking  and  blasphemous  errors,  and 
which,  if  carried  out  into  their  legitimate  consequen- 
ces, "  lead  to  universalism,  to  infidelity  and  to  athe- 
ism." These  are  the  principal  reasons  which  the 
trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute  assign,  for  the 
establishment  of  a  new  seminary. 

To  the  remarks  of  the  New  Haven  Professors  on 
their  creed,  the  Trustees  reply :  "If  they  can  ex 
anhno^  and  without  qualification  or  reservation,  sub- 
scribe these  articles ;  and  if  they  intend  to  teach 
nothing  inconsistent  with  them,  we  sincerely  re- 
joice in  the  fact.  But  that  they  can  subscribe  them 
consistently  J  in  the  sense  in  which  we  receive  them, 
and  in  the  sense  in  which  the  language  has  here- 
tofore been  generally  understood,  we  shall  find  it 
impossible  to  beheve,  till  they  have  retracted  some 
of  their  published  statements,  or  explained  them  in 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.      261 

Second  statement  of  the  Professors. 


a  manner  more  satisfactory  than  they  have  hitherto 
done." 

The  Professors  of  the  Theological  Department 
of  Yale  College  published  a  second  statement,  in 
answer  to  this  appeal.* 

They  express  their  astonishment  at  the  manner 
in  which  the  Trustees  of  the  Institute  have  now 
come  forward  as  a  body,  in  their  official  capacity, 
to  repeat  the  charges  which  had  previously  been 
made  by  the  president,  in  his  inaugural  address, 
and  by  one  of  their  number  before  the  Corpora- 
tion of  Yale  College.  In  their  recent  ''  Statement," 
they  had  declared  their  cordial  concurrence  in  every 
sentiment  expressed  in  the  articles  of  the  East 
Windsor  Institute.  Their  declaration  ought  to  have 
been  satisfactory  to  the  trustees,  until  they  had 
fairly  shewn  that  the  published  statements  of  the 
professors,  were  inconsistent  with  the  articles  of 
their  own  creed.  This  they  had  not  attempted  to 
do.  They  had  hastily  passed  over  the  subject  in  a 
single  sentence,  that  seemed  to  convey  the  insinua- 
tion that  they  were  insincere,  in  making  the  sol- 
emn declaration  which  they  had  made  before  the 
world.     "  Such  are   the   circumstances,"  say  the 


*  The  article  appeared  in  the  Connecticut  Observer,  the  New- 
Haven  Religious  Intelligencer,  the  New  York  Evangelist,  and 
partly  in  the  New  York  Observer,  of  the  date  of  Nov.  29,  1834. 


262         MEASURES    IN   CONNECTICUT, 
Second  statement  of  the  Professors, 

professors,  "  under  which  the  tmstees  have  sought 
to  draw  off  public  attention  from  our  appeal  to  their 
creed,  by  an  imposing  array  of  inferences  from  our 
alledged  principles;  inferences  which,  they  are 
compelled  to  acknowledge,  form  no  part  of  our  ac- 
tual behef !  But  in  doing  this,  have  they  stated 
our  principles  as  we  state  them  ?  Have  they  met 
those  reasonings  by  which  we  claim  to  have  set 
aside  these  inferences  ?  Have  they  in  short,  come 
up  to  the  question  at  all^  in  its  present  state  ?  The 
farthest  from  it  possible !  They  have  gone  back 
to  the  earliest  stages  of  the  controversy ;  retailed 
arguments  which  were  answered  years  ago  ;  made 
deductions  from  principles  which  we  have  repeat- 
edly declared  we  never  held ;  urged  conclusions 
which  they  know  we  deny  to  be  just,  without  ever 
hinting  at  the  reasoning  by  which  we  claim  to 
have  set  them  aside,  or  attempting  to  meet  it ;  and 
all  this  mass  of  obsolete  argumentation,  they  have 
thrown  out  upon  the  public,  not  merely  through 
the  ordinary  channels  of  religious  intelligence,  but 
in  the  columns  of  a  political  newspaper,  to  be  read 
by  thousands  who  know  nothing  of  the  contro- 
versy, and  by  them  to  be  received  as  incontroverti- 
ble truth !" 

The  professors  then  reply  to  the  charges  brought 
against  them  by  the  trustees,  by  simply  repeating 
the  answers  which  had  before  been  given  to  the 
same  charges. 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN   VIEWS.      263 
Their  answer  to  the  charge  of  subverting  decrees. 

They  notice  the  charge  of  subverting  the  doc- 
trine of  decrees,  somewhat  in  the  following  man- 
ner. The  main  argument  used  by  the  trustees  in 
support  of  this  charge  is  this.  How  is  it  possible 
for  God  to  prefer,  on  any  account,  the  existence  of 
sin  in  any  instance,  if  all  things  considered,  that 
is,  on  all  accounts,  he  prefers  something  else  in  its 
stead  in  all  instances  ?  Here  the  phrase,  "  all 
things  consider ed^^"^  is  taken  in  its  widest  applica- 
tion ;  whereas  the  professors  expressly  confined  it 
to  a  single  case,  viz.  where  there  is  a  choice  simply 
between  sin  and  holiness.  This  limitation  the 
trustees  suppress.  They  do  the  same  with  the 
phrase,  all  instances  or  cases,  which  was  also  lim- 
ited to  the  single  case  of  a  choice  between  sin  and 
holiness.  Let  the  question  be  put  with  their  lim- 
itation, how  can  God  prefer  the  existence  of  sin  in 
any  instance,  where  (all  things  considered)  he  pre- 
ferred holiness  to  sin,  and  the  answer  is :  He  can 
prefer  the  existence  of  sin  as  compared  with  some 
other  thing  than  holiness,  (suppose  the  non-exist- 
ence of  a  moral  system, )  while  yet  he  does  not  pre- 
fer it  to  holiness,  when  sin  and  hoHness  are  the 
things  compared.  A  man  may  prefer  the  loss  of  a 
limb,  not  for  the  sake  of — but  notwithstanding  the 
pain  which  attends  its  amputation,  and  thus  decide 
that  the  pain  shall  exist :  and  so  God  may  have 
adopted  our  present  system,  not  for  the  sake  of — 


264   MEASURES  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Their  remarks  respecting  the  nature  of  mankind. 

but  notwithstanding  the  sin  which  it  contains,  and  ^ 
in  so  doing  purpose  or  decree  that  sin  shall  exist. 

The  Princeton  professors  and  the  great  body  of 
Calvinists  in  our  country,  reject  the  position  that 
God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  sin  to  holiness, 
and  are  therefore  equally  implicated  in  the  charge 
of  subverting  the  divine  decrees.  Even  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  East  Windsor  Institute  once  declared, 
that  God  chose  this  system,  ^^notwithstanding  the 
evil  which  it  contains." 

In  regard  to  the  charge  brought  by  the  trustees 
respecting  the  nature  with  which  mankind  now 
come  into  the  world,  the  professors  in  substance  re- 
mark, that  it  applies  equally  to  the  President  of  the 
Institute  as  to  them.  By  7iature  they  mean  the 
constitution  or  structure  of  the  mind ;  and  Dr.  Ty- 
ler has  expressly  disclaimed  the  imputation  of  hold- 
ing any  change  in  this  respect,  as  a  consequence  of 
the  fall ;  "  much  less  have  I  affirmed/'  he  says, 
"  that  it  is  a  physical  change  in  the  structure  of  the 
mind."  The  trustees  have  also  attributed  to  them 
the  sentiment,  that  the  difference  of  character  be- 
tween Adam  as  he  was  created,  and  his  posterity,  is 
not  owing  to  a  difference  in  nature,  but  in  circum- 
stances ;  and  this  charge  they  have  attempted  to 
prove,  by  quoting  a  sentence  which  was  professedly 
a  statement  of  the  consequences  of  one  of  Dr.  Ty- 
ler's positions !  The  professors  are  very  far  from 
saying,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  had  no  more  influence 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN    VIEWS.    265 

Their  remarks  on  disinterested  benevolence. 

on  his  descendants  than  that  of  any  other  parent. 
On  the  contrary,  they  hold,  with  Edwards,  that  as 
the  direct  result  of  Adam's  sin,  those  lower  appe- 
tites which  were  in  man  in  innocence,  being  in- 
creased in  strength,  and  unchecked  by  the  higher 
principle  of  love  to  God,  constitute  a  tendency  to 
evil,  which  results  in  the  entire  depravity  of  man, 
from  the  very  commencement  of  moral  agency. 

In  regard  to  the  charge,  brought  by  the  trustees 
against  the  professors,  of  setting  aside  the  doctrine 
of  disinterested  benevolence,  they  reply  substan- 
tially as  follows  :  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Dwight,  "  dis- 
interested benevolence  is  not  i^/iinterested  benevo- 
lence." They  hold  with  him  that  volition  or  choice 
is  ultimately  founded  on  a  desire  of  happiness.  In 
speaking  of  an  ultimate  end,  they  have  intended  an 
end  not  external  to  the  mind,  but  that  which  lies 
deepest  in  the  soul ;  the  constitutional  desire  of  hap- 
piness, which  is  entirely  distinct  from  selfishness. 
How  can  there  be  an  act  of  choice,  without  capacity 
for  happiness  in  the  agent,  and  an  adaptation  of  the 
object  chosen  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  happiness  ?  Is 
holiness  a  cold  discharge  of  duty  which  aims  not  at 
pleasure  or  satisfaction  in  the  object  on  which  it 
rests  ?  Is  there  any  thing  selfish  or  unworthy,  in 
seeking  happiness  in  God,  or  in  enjoying  him  ? 

In  regard  to  the  charge  of  making  regeneration 
progressive, — the  Professors  say,  ''  The  trustees 
23 


266         MEASURES    IN    CONNECTICUT, 

Their  remarks  on  the  saints'  perseverance. 

might  as  well  charge  Dr.  Brown  with  denying  that 
sight  is  instantaneous,  because  he  resolves  it  into 
successive  acts,  as  to  charge  us  with  holding  to  pro- 
gressive regeneration,  because,  in  showing  that 
this  change  is  wrought,  '  through  the  truth,'  we 
analyzed  it  into  acts  following  each  other  in  the  or- 
der of  nature ;  though  we  distinctly  said,  not  of 
perceptible  duration.^^ 

"  The  charge  of  subverting  the  doctrine  of  per- 
severance," say  the  professors,  "  is  the  most  extra- 
ordinary of  all ;  and  is  made  out  certainly  by  a  most 
original  mode  of  reeisoning.  We  had  said,  that  no 
proof  can  be  derived  by  our  opponents  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  that  a  being  who  can  sin,  will  not 
sin ;  and  hence  the  trustees  infer,  that  no  proof  on 
this  point  can  be  derived  from  any  other  quarter ; 
not  even  from  God's  own  declaration,  that  none  of 
his  children  will  utterly  fall  away  !" 

The  professors  declare  their  intention  to  enter 
into  no  further  debate  with  the  trustees  of  the  East 
Windsor  Institute.  They  resign  all  their  share  in 
this  controversy  into  the  hands  of  the  Corporation 
of  Yale  College.  And  as  they  thus  preclude  them- 
selves from  making  any  comments  on  what  may  be 
said  in  reply  to  their  remarks,  they  make  one  re- 
quest of  a  just  and  enlightened  pubUc.  It  is,  that 
they  will  steadfastly  insist  in  their  behalf,  that  who- 
ever may  come  out  against  them,  shall  meet  the 
issue  as  it  is  here  stated. 


TO    SUPPRESS    NEW    HAVEN   VIEWS.      267 

How  the  issue  should  be  stated. 

''Have  we  been  misrepresented  in  the  manner 
here  pointed  out  ?" 

''  Has  the  President  of  the  Institute  abandoned 
the  theory,  that  God  chose  our  present  system,  in 
any  sense  for  the  sake  of  the  evil  which  it  con- 
tains ?" 

"  Does  he  maintain,  that  the  structure  of  the  hu- 
man soul  is  unchanged  by  the  fall,  and  that  there  is 
nothing  sinful  in  man,  lying  back  of  moral  action?" 

"  Does  an  agreement  in  these  respects,  remove  all 
grounds  of  difference  as  to  the  main  points  which 
have  been  so  long  in  debate  ?  To  these  questions 
we  answer,  yes.  If  any  man  shall  hereafter  attack 
us,  let  him  answer,  no  ;  and  come  forward  with  his 
proofs." 

To  this  second  "statement"  of  the  professors  of 
the  theological  department  of  Yale  College,  the 
trustees  of  the  East  Windsor  Institute  made  no  re- 
ply; nor  did  one  appear  from  any  other  quEirter. 
It  seemed  to  be  a  general  sentiment  among  the 
ministers  of  Connecticut,  that  it  was  time  to  end 
the  controversy,  by  discontinuing  the  discussion. 
Measures  were  soon  undertaken  with  the  design  of 
restoring  mutual  harmony  and  confidence,  between 
those  who  differed  in  theological  opinion.  The 
basis  of  action  on  the  subject,  was  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  soundness  of  both  parties,  in  respect  to 
the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  The  effect 
of  the  movement  was  happy.     Excitement  was  by 


268     MEASURES     IN     CONNECTICUT,    &C. 

Measures  for  restoring  harmony. 

degrees  allayed,  and  the  public  mind  was  restored 
to  its  wonted  calmness.  The  feeling  prevailed, 
that  peace  and  spiritual  prosperity  are  better  than 
contention  and  strife  about  unessential  points  of 
doctrine,  which  formed  no  part  of  the  ''  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  respecting  which, 
though  of  greater  or  less  importance  in  explaining 
what  has  been  delivered,  Peter  and  Paul  might  dif- 
fer, and  still  unitedly  labor  to  fulfill  the  command 
of  Christ,  "  go,  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature." 
With  a  few  exceptions  on  the  part  of  some  vio- 
lent or  prejudiced  men,  the  members  of  associa- 
tions and  ecclesiastical  councils  in  Connecticut,  had 
uniformly  acted  on  the  ground  that  no  difference  of 
sentiment  existed,  justifying  division  or  alienation 
amongst  ministers  or  churches.  Few  individuals, 
if  any,  were  committed  to  an  opposite  course.  The 
obstacles,  therefore,  to  a  restoration  of  confidence, 
were  less,  and  the  more  easily  removed ;  and  for 
nearly  three  years,  both  ministers  and  churches 
have  been  approaching  towards  a  state  of  perfect 
cordiality  and  affection.  This,  if  not  already  at- 
tained, is  so  nearly  accomplished,  that  nothing,  it 
is  believed,  can  prevent  its  final  and  speedy  con- 
summation. That  charity  which  beareth  all  things 
and  is  kind,  will  forgive ;  and  the  love  of  Christ 
will  prevail  over  all  feelings  of  personal  regard  and 
private  interest,  which  have  too  often  had  an  undue 
share  of  influence  in  theological  controversy. 


269 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

DR.    Tyler's    letters   to    dr.    with 

ERSP  OON. 


Letters  to  Dr.  Witherspoon. 


Another  movement,  closely  connected  with  the 
doings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  and  with 
other  parts  of  the  history  already  written,  must  now 
be  recorded, — a  movement  which  has  caused  no  in- 
considerable sensation  among  the  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut, and  has  torn  open,  as  may  be  feared,  some 
wounds  which  were  supposed  to  be  healed. 

On  the  10th  of  February,  1837,  the  president  of 
the  Theological  Institute,  as  it  now  appears,  com- 
menced a  series  of  letters,  addressed  to  the  Rev. 
John  Witherspoon,  D.  D.,  of  South  Carolina,  which, 
with  notes  appended  by  him,  were  published  anon- 
ymously in  the  Southern  Christian  Herald,  under 
the  title  of  "  Letters  on  the  origin  and  progress  of 
Arminian  Views  in  New  England,  from  a  distin- 
guished New  England  Minister  to  one  in  the 
South."  The  whole  series  of  letters  consists  of 
eighteen,  the  last  of  which  bears  date  the  18th  of 
May,  1837.  These  letters,  as  the  Editor  of  the 
Herald  informs  the  public,  were  copied  into  all  the 
23* 


270  DR.  Tyler's   letters 

The  authorship  of  these  letters  how  awarded. 

Old  School  papers  connected  with  the  Presbyterian 
church.  They  were  also  published  in  the  Hart- 
ford Watchman,  and  some  months  afterwards  came 
forth  from  the  press  in  a  small  volume,  entitled, 
''  Letters  on  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  New  Ha- 
ven Theology,  from  a  New  England  Minister  to 
one  in  the  South." 

The  volume  purports  to  be  a  history,  the  object 
of  which  "is  to  give  a  brief  but  faithful  account  of 
what  has  sometimes  been  denominated  the  New 
Haven  Controversy."  The  authorship  of  the  letters 
contained  in  this  volume,  caused  considerable  spec- 
ulation in  Connecticut,  and  though  they  contained 
many  marks  indicative  of  the  general  source  from 
which  they  came,  yet  the  individual  who  wrote 
them  was  not  certainly  ascertained,  till  his  name 
was  disclosed  by  Dr.  Woods  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  With- 
erspoon,  dated  Aug.  23d,  1837,  and  published  in 
the  Southern  Christian  Herald.  In  this  manner, 
the  authorship  was  awarded  to  Dr.  Tyler.  To  do 
complete  justice  to  the  Letters,  would  require  more 
space  than  can  be  devoted  to  them  on  these  pages  ; 
yet  so  directly  are  they  connected  with  the  subject 
under  consideration,  they  must  not  be  passed  over 
entirely  unnoticed.  The  history  of  the  controversy 
already  given  must  serve,  however,  in  peu't,  as  a 
comment  upon  them. 


TO     DR.    WITHERSPOON.  271 

Are  they  a  true  history  ? 

The  volume  may  be  considered  in  two  parts,  the 
former  of  which  professes  to  give  an  account  of 
^'  the  New  Haven  Controversy,"  and  the  latter,  to 
shew  the  points  of  difference  between  the  New  Ha- 
ven divines  and  other  theological  writers.  It  has 
been  claimed  by  the  author  of  these  letters  and  his 
friends,  that  the  history  which  they  profess  to  give 
is  impartial  and  true.  They  are  even  endorsed  by 
Dr.  Woods,  as  being  "written  ably  and  justly." 
Others  regard  them  as  grossly  misrepresenting  the 
whole  subject,  and  as  being  calculated  to  mislead 
those  who  are  not  entirely  familiar  with  it.  It  is 
proper,  therefore,  to  examine  their  character.  To 
the  question,  do  the  letters  contain  a  correct  account 
of  the  controversy  whose  history  they  profess  to 
give ; — no  other  answer  than  a  negative  one  can 
be  returned.  Whatever  may  be  the  belief  of  Dr. 
Tyler  or  of  any  other  person, — to  the  simple  ques- 
tion of  their  correctness  or  incorrectness,  there  is 
but  one  answer.  The  impression  which  they  are 
calculated  to  leave  on  the  mind  of  a  reader  who  is 
possessed  of  no  other  information,  is  palpably  incor- 
rect.    Some  proof  of  this  will  now  be  exhibited. 

In  the  first  place,  great  errors  are  committed  in  the 
statement  of  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines. The  following  examples  will  serve  as  spe- 
cimens. Dr.  Tyler  says,  (p.  120,)  the  New  Ha- 
ven divines  have  maintained,  that  God  has  not  a 


272  DR.  Tyler's    letters 

Their  misrepresentations  of  doctrine. 

complete  control  over  the  moral  universe,  and  that 
sin  exists  because  God  cannot  prevent  it  in  a  moral 
system.  The  quotations  which  he  gives  from  the 
Christian  Spectator,  and  from  the  Concio  ad  Cle- 
rum,  in  support  of  these  statements,  correctly  in- 
terpreted, convey  no  such  ideas  ;  and  no  passages, 
it  is  believed,  can  be  adduced  from  the  writings  of 
Dr.  Taylor,  or  from  the  pages  of  the  Spectator,  to 
substantiate  them.  What  more  complete  control 
can  God  exercise  over  the  moral  universe,  than  to 
have  created,  from  all  that  were  possible,  just  such 
a  system  as  he  pleased ;  and  then  to  govern  that 
system,  just  as  from  eternity  he  purposed  to  govern 
it,  and  so  as  to  secure  the  results  which  he  foresaw 
and  predetermined?  Can  there  be  no  complete 
control  over  moral  agents,  except  by  a  physical  or 
compulsory  influence  ?  What  more  complete  con- 
trol, than  that  which  secures  the  exact  accomphsh- 
ment  of  all  his  providential  purposes  ?  Such  po- 
sitions the  New  Haven  divines  have  uniformly 
maintained ;  and  nowhere  have  they  maintained, 
that  sin  exists,  because  God  could  not  prevent  it  in 
any  individual  instance,  nor  because  he  has  not  de- 
creed its  existence.  To  demand  the  proof  that  God 
could  have  prevented  all  sin  in  a  moral  system,  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  affirming  that  he  could 
not  prevent  it,  or  that  he  has  not  decreed  its  exist- 
ence. 


TO     DR.    WITHERSPOON.  273  , 

Their  misrepresentations  of  doctrine. 

Again,  Dr.  Tyler,  (p.  132,)  charges  the  New  Ha- 
ven divines  with  maintaining,  that  there  is  no 
hereditary  corruption  of  nature  which  is  trans- 
mitted from  parent  to  child ;  that  infants  sustain 
the  same  relation  to  the  moral  government  of  God, 
as  brute  animals ;  and  that  they  are  in  no  sense 
sinners.  Now  the  New  Haven  divines  have  never 
denied,  that  there  is  a  hereditary  propensity  to 
sin,  or  what  they  understand  Dr.  Tyler  to  mean 
by  a  hereditary  corruption  of  nature,  which  is  trans- 
mitted from  parent  to  child.  What  they  have  de- 
nied on  this  subject  is,  that  the  ground  or  occa- 
sion of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind,  which 
exists  in  the  constitution  of  Adam's  posterity,  in 
consequence  of  their  connection  with  him,  is  itself 
sinful.  They,  it  will  be  remembered,  make  all  sin 
consist  in  wrong  moral  action,  and  represent  the 
nature  of  mankind  to  be  such,  that  they  will  sin, 
and  only  sin,  in  all  the  appropriate  circumstances 
of  their  being.  Nor  have  they  affirmed,  that  in- 
fants sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  God  as  brute  animals,  nor,  that  they  aie 
not,  in  popular  language,  truly  said  to  be  sinners 
from  the  first,  even  as  soon  as  they  become  moreil 
agents.  Nor  can  contrary  inferences  be  drawn 
from  a  denial,  that  the  death  of  infants  is  proof  of 
their  being  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God,  or  sinners  in 
the  sense  of  deserving  punishment. 


274  DR.  Tyler's   letters 

Their  misrepresentations  of  doctrine. 

Again,  Dr.  Tyler  says,  (p.  143,)  the  New  Haven 
divines  maintain,  that  antecedent  to  regeneration 
in  the  restricted  sense,  the  selfish  principle  is  sus- 
pended in  the  sinner's  heart,  and  that  he  then 
ceases  to  sin  and  is  in  a  state  of  neutrality ;  and  he 
affirms  that  ''  thus  they  in  fact  represent  regenera- 
tion as  a  progressive  work."  Now  such  statements 
of  their  doctrine  on  this  subject,  are  very  incorrect. 
They  have  never  maintained  that  the  sinner  ceas- 
es to  sin,  till  he  gives  his  heart  to  God ;  nor  that 
his  character  is  for  a  moment  neutral.  Nor  have 
they  represented  regeneration  a  progressive  work, 
in  any  other  sense,  than  that  the  term  denotes  a 
complex  act,  some  parts  of  which,  in  the  order  of 
nature,  though  not  of  time,  are  previous  to  others. 

Dr.  Tyler  also  says,  (p.  158,)  according  to  the  New 
Haven  divines,  every  moral  being  makes  his  own 
happiness  his  ultimate  end.  They  thus  virtually 
destroy  the  radical  distinction  between  holiness  and 
sin,  making  them  both  proceed  from  the  same  prin- 
ciple of  action.  So,  Dr.  Taylor  replies,  it  must  be 
according  to  Dr.  Tyler ;  for  he  maintains,  that 
when  man  becomes  holy  he  does  so,  to  gratify  a 
new  created  propensity  to  holiness ;  i.  e.  he  becomes 
holy  for  the  pleasure  or  happiness  there  is  in  being 
holy.  The  simple  question  on  this  subject  is,  can 
a  moral  being  choose  either  God  or  the  world  as  his 
portion,  or  act  at  all  as  a  moral  being,  xmless  prompt- 


TO    DR.    WITHERSPOON.  275 

Their  misrepresentations  of  doctrine. 

ed  to  action  by  a  desire  of  happiness ;  and  if  he 
cannot,  then  his  moral  character  must  consist  in  the 
choice  or  preference  of  his  mind,  and  not  in  a  con- 
stitutional desire  of  happiness.  That  Dr.  Tyler, 
after  all  the  discussion  on  this  subject,  should  persist 
in  charging  the  New  Haven  divines,  with  destroy- 
ing the  radical  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin, 
is  not  easy  to  be  explained. 

Dr.  Tyler  represents,  (p.  165,)  that  the  great  body 
of  those  who  profess  to  adopt  the  sentiments  of  the 
New  Haven  divines,  discard  the  doctrine  of  an  im- 
mediate and  direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  re- 
generation. This  certainly  is  a  misrepresentation 
in  regard  to  the  ministers  of  New  England ;  and  if 
the  doctrinal  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1837  is  any  evidence,  the  same  is  true 
in  respect  to  the  Presbyterian  church.  Indeed,  very 
few  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  divines  of  the 
present  day,  have  even  explained  the  mode  of  the 
Spirit's  operations  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  a  direct  and  immediate  agency  on  the 
mind. 

Such  are  some  of  the  misstatements  contained  in 
the  letters  of  Dr.  Tyler,  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Haven  divines. 

There  are  also  many  statements  in  the  book, 
made  in  language  liable  to  be  misunderstood  by 
multitudes,  for  whose  instruction  the  letters  were 


276  DR.  tylee's   letters 

Their  omissions. 

intended.     This  is  illustrated  in  the  following  ex- 
simples. 

The  New  Haven  divined  maintain,  says  Dr.  Tyler, 
that  there  is  no  natural  or  constitutional  propensity 
to  sin ;  that  mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the 
same  nature  in  kind,  as  that  with  which  Adam  was 
created ;  and  that  sinners  may  so  resist  the  grace  of 
God,  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  God  to  convert 
them.  Dr.  Witherspoon  and  the  members  of  the  Phil- 
adelphia convention,  would  be  led  to  conclude  from 
these  statements,  that  the  New  Haven  divines  deny 
all  propensity  or  tendency  to  sin  in  mankind ;  that 
they  consider  the  posterity  of  Adam,  as  coming  in- 
to the  world  with  a  nature,  in  all  respects  the  same, 
as  that  with  which  he  was  created ;  and  that  ca- 
ses may  occur  in  which  sinners  defeat  the  grace 
of  God;  whereas  they  are  the  farthest  possible 
from  adopting  such  sentiments.  But  the  correct- 
ness of  a  writing  depends  not  merely  on  the  truth 
of  each  isolated  statement.  The  omission  of  what 
is  essential  to  the  proper  understanding  of  a  sub- 
ject, will  propagate  error  with  equal  effect,  as  the 
insertion  of  what  is  not  true.  Such  incorrectness 
abounds  in  the  letters  of  Dr.  Tyler.  In  his  state- 
ments of  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Haven  divines, 
he  omits  their  qualifications  and  their  explanations  ; 
and  reiterates  the  charges  which  he  had  long  before 
preferred,  and  which  had  been  again  and  again  re- 
futed. 


TO     DR.    WITHERSPOON.  277 

Their  omissions. 

His  sixth  letter  consists  almost  exclusively  of 
extracts  from  his  own  remarks  on  Dr.  Taylor's 
letters  to  Dr.  Hawes,  without  any  account  of  the 
contents  of  it,  except  a  sentence  or  two  for  the  pur- 
pose of  introducing  his  own  comments.  His  sev- 
enth letter,  on  the  other  hand,  consists  of  extracts 
from  an  article  by  Dr.  Taylor,  in  which  he  exam- 
ines the  theories  of  Dr.  Tyler  in  relation  to  the  de- 
pravity of  man,  and  the  divine  permission  of  sin. 
By  the  selection  of  certain  parts,  with  the  help  of 
Dr.  Porter's  introductory  condemnation  of  the  ar- 
ticle, Dr.  Taylor  is  made  to  appear  as  ''  unmanly 
and  of  unchristian  temper."  The  eighth  letter  is 
principally  composed  of  extracts  from  Dr.  Tyler^s 
pamphlet,  shewing  in  what  points  of  doctrine  he 
differed  from  Dr.  Taylor,  with  such  an  introduction 
and  peroration,  as  to  make  the  latter  appear  in  the 
absurd  predicament  of  claiming  an  entire  agreement 
with  Dr.  Tyler,  and  at  the  same  time  charging  him 
with  sentiments  which  lead  to  the  very  worst  of 
heresies.  In  all  these  examples,  there  is  great  in- 
correctness of  statement,  resulting  from  the  sup- 
pression of  what  was  essential  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  subject.  The  book  abounds  with 
similar  misrepresentations.  Thus  Dr.  Taylor  has  in 
no  instance  charged  Dr.  Tyler  with  believing,  or 
holding  the  revolting  inferences,  drawn  from  what 
Dr.  Tyler  does  hold  ;  but  is  careful  to  say,  ''  we  by 
24 


278 

Their  insinuations. 


no  means  intimate  that  Dr.  Tyler  really  embraces 
the  conclusions,  which  we  have  deduced  from  his 
theories."  Dr.  Tyler  should  be  the  last  to  complain 
of  the  reductio  ad  ahsurdum.  In  this  mode  of 
reasoning,  he  commenced  his  attack  on  Dr.  Taylor, 
and  has  pursued  it  to  the  last. 

The  letters  are  also  calculated  to  give  a  false  im- 
pression, in  respect  to  the  whole  system  of  the 
New  Haven  divines.  Ministers  five  hundred  or  a 
thousand  miles  distant,  on  reading  them  would  very 
naturally  conclude,  that  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  friends 
jire  Arminians,  Pelagians,  and  Unitarians.  The 
book  begins  with  insinuations  of  this  kind,  which 
are  rendered  plausible  by  numerous  quotations  from 
the  letters  of  theological  partizans.  I  must  pro- 
ceed, says  Dr.  Tyler,  to  answer  your  inquiries  re- 
specting "  the  origin  and  progress  of  Arminian  views 
in  New  England."  I  suppose  you  refer  to  the  New 
Haven  speculations.  He  says  not  a  word  to  correct 
the  false  impression  which  the  language  of  his  cor- 
respondent is  calculated  to  produce,  but  proceeds  as 
though  the  inquiry  was  properly  made.  To  keep 
up  the  impression,  he  quotes  a  passage  from  the  late 
Dr.  Porter  of  Andover,  and  introduces  a  doggerel 
rhyme,  the  purport  of  which  is  that  Dr.  Taylor 
was  reviving  Arminianism.  In  another  place,  he 
quotes  from  Dr.  Fisk,  of  the  Wesleyan  University, 
to  show  that  he  claims  an  agreement  with  the  New 


TO     DR.     WITHERSPOON.  279 

Their  insinuations. 

Haven  divines,  and  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Griffin, 
represents  his  claim  as  just.  He  also  gives  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  Noah  Worcester,  a  Unitarian 
clergyman  of  Massachusetts,  in  which  he  approves 
of  certain  doctrines  maintained  by  them,  viz.  ''  that 
sin  is  a  voluntary  transgression  of  a  known  law, 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  sinful  nature  ante- 
cedent to  sinful  volition,  or  moral  action,"  and  that 
sin  may  be  incidental  to  the  best  moral  system. 
Many  other  quotations  might  be  noticed,  apparently 
designed  to  impress  the  reader  with  the  belief,  that 
Dr.  Taylor  and  his  friends  have  exchanged  Calvin- 
ism, for  one  or  another  system  of  error.  Now  was 
Dr.  Tyler  so  ignorant  of  the  quality  of  his  own 
writings,  that  he  was  not  aware  what  would  be 
their  effect ;  or  did  he  intend  to  produce  such  im- 
pressions? If  the  latter  supposition  is  true,  why 
did  he  not  come  out  with  a  bold  and  manly  front 
in  Connecticut,  put  his  insinuations  into  the  shape 
of  charges,  and  meet  Dr.  Taylor  face  to  face  upon 
them,  or  at  least  make  them  under  the  signature  of 
his  own  name  ?  Such  charges  could  not  be  sub- 
stantiated, according  to  Dr.  Tyler's  own  confession. 
See  page  181. 

The  letters  are  calculated  to  mislead,  in  respect 
to  the  difference  of  sentiment  between  the  New 
Haven  divines  and  their  brethren,  both  of  a  former 
period  and  the  present  day.     Several  letters  are  oc- 


280  DR.  Tyler's  letters 

The  false  impression  they  give  respecting  difference  of  opinion. 

cupied  in  shewing  the  difference  of  opinion  between 
them  and  other  writers  in  respect  to  the  govern- 
ment of  God  over  the  universe  ;  in  regard  to  origi- 
nal sin  and  native  depravity  ;  in  regard  to  regenera- 
tion, the  influence  of  self-love,  the  mode  of  the 
Spirit's  operations,  and  the  doctrine  of  election.  On 
all  these  important  subjects,  such  sentiments  are  at- 
tributed to  the  New  Haven  divines,  as  they  utterly 
discard,  and  such  as  the  passages  adduced  as  proof, 
by  no  means  justify.  Take,  for  example,  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  Dr.  Tyler  would  make  it  appear 
that  they  hold  the  Arminian  doctrine  on  this  sub- 
ject, viz.  that  God  eternally  purposed  to  save  those, 
who  he  foresaw  would  cease  to  resist  his  grace  and 
submit  to  his  authority,  but  did  not  purpose  at 
all  to  make  them  holy.  This,  Dr.  Taylor  has  ex- 
pressly disclaimed;  and  the  quotations  from  the 
review  of  Fisk  on  predestination  and  election,  if 
they  furnish  any  plausible  support  of  the  position, 
convey  a  different  meaning  detached,  from  what 
they  do  in  their  connection  in  the  original  article. 
The  self-love  also,  which  they  regard  as  the  primary 
cause  of  all  moral  action,  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  the  selfishness  so  pointedly  condemned  under 
the  name  of  self-love,  by  the  writers  whom  Dr. 
Tyler  quotes.  Indeed,  among  the  many  passages 
which  he  has  extracted  from  the  writings  of  the 
standard  divines  of  New  England,  to  shew  a  differ- 


TO     DR.     WITHERSPOON.  281 

Their  appeal  to  the  authority  of  names. 

ence  of  sentiments  on  the  doctrines  in  question, 
there  is  hardly  one  to  which  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines would  not  cheerfully  subscribe. 

Another  thing  ought  to  be  noticed  in  estimating 
this  work  of  Dr.  Tyler's.  Extracts  are  made  from 
the  private  letters  of  some  New  England  ministers, 
as  though  they  expressed  the  present  views  and  feel- 
ings of  the  writers  ;  whereas  these  have  materially 
changed  within  the  six  or  seven  years  since  the  let- 
ters were  written.  Some  have  even  apologized  for 
the  expressions  which  they  had  used  in  free  corres- 
pondence, under  a  particular  aspect  of  things,  and 
which,  without  their  consent,  were  published  to 
the  world. 

But  what  is  perhaps  the  most  exceptionable  of 
all  is,  that  appeal  to  names  which  composes  the 
chief  argument  of  the  book.  To  enumerate  all, 
living  and  dead,  titled  and  untitled,  which  appear 
on  its  pages,  or  to  tell  how  many  times  each  of 
them  is  made  to  speak  his  sentiments  on  different 
subjects,  or  with  what  language  he  clothes  them, 
is  not  necessary.  Bat,  is  it  a  correct  mode  of  set- 
tling points  of  theology,  and  especially  of  meta- 
physics, to  appeal  to  names,  no  matter  how  distin- 
guished ?  Can  the  opinion  of  David  Brainerd,  Asa- 
hel  Nettleton,  Dr.  Hyde,  or  even  of  Dr.  Woods  and 
Dr.  Tyler  himself,  whose  former  writings  compose 
so  large  a  part  of  the  letters  to  Dr.  Witherspoon, 
24* 


282  DR.  Tyler's    letters 

Why  were  the  letters  written  ? 

determine  the  question,  whether  man  is  a  sinner 
from  the  instant  he  takes  a  breath  of  atmospheric 
air  into  his  kings  ;  or  for  what  reason  God  permits 
sin  ?     Is  the  authority  of  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith,  suf- 
ficient to  determine  the  vaUdity  of  an  argument, 
without  examining  more  than  one  side ;  or  that  of 
Dr.  Ebenezer  Porter,  whose   praise  is  in  all  the 
churches,  but  who  confessed  himself  completely 
non-plussed  to  see  what  Dr.  Taylor  would  be  at  ? 
Such,  in  their  general  character,  are  believed  to 
be  the  Letters  on  "  New  Haven  Theology,"  written 
by  Dr.  Tyler,  President  of  the  Theological  Insti- 
tute of  Connecticut.      No  other  president  or  pro- 
fessor of  a  theological  institution,  it  is  presumed, 
ever  has  written,  or  under  similar  circumstances, 
ever  will  write  another  just  such  book.     And  why 
did  Dr.  Tyler  write  these  letters  to  Dr.  Wither- 
spoon  ?     Why  did  he  attempt  to  write  a  history  of 
events  in  which  he  was  a  principal  actor  ?     Was  it 
because  a  person  engaged  for  years  in  spirited  if  not 
prejudiced  discussion,  would  be  likely  to  be  an  im- 
partial historian  ?    And  if  he  undertook  to  write  at 
all,  why  did  he  not  subscribe  his  own  name  and 
publish  them  in  Connecticut  ?     Perhaps  it  will  be 
said,  the  letters  were  written  at  the  request  of  Dr. 
Witherspoon.      But  the  inquiry  then  arises,  why 
did   Dr.    Tyler   undertake    to    write    a   series   of 
eighteen  letters,  when  he  admits  that  his  corres- 


TO     DR.    WITHERSPOON.  283 

Why  were  the  letters  written? 

pondent  probably  expected  but  one?  And  why 
should  they  be  published  in  the  Southern  Christian 
Herald  and  copied  into  all  the  Old  School  Presby- 
terian papers,  just  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837  ?  May  not  these  ques- 
tions be  satisfactorily  solved,  on  the  supposition  of 
an  alliance  of  Old  School  leaders  in  Connecticut 
and  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  on  the  ground, 
that  "  if  one  fails  the  other  fails,  and  if  one  prospers 
the  other  prospers?"  For  whatever  purpose  they 
were  written,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  ex- 
erted a  considerable  influence  in  causing  the  vio- 
lent proceedings  of  the  Assembly,  which  immedi- 
ately followed  their  publication.  They  assisted  the 
members  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention  to  make 
out  so  accurate  a  list  of  errors,  as  to  need,  perhaps, 
no  correction  from  their  friends  in  New  England. 
They  emboldened  the  Assembly  to  adopt  measures 
which  could  never  have  been  carried,  but  for  their 
belief  in  the  existence  of  wide-spread  and  prevail- 
ing heresy  in  the  Congregational  churches.  The 
impartial  historian  of  future  days,  therefore,  will 
award  to  Dr.  Tyler  the  reputation  of  having  done 
something  to  abrogate  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  occa- 
sion the  catastrophe  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 


284 


CHAPTER    XXII 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS. 


The  two  points  of  inquiry. 


The  preceding  account  of  the  late  theological 
controversy  in  New  England  shews,  that  the  two 
leading  points  of  inquiry  have  been,  firsts  what  is 
the  nature  of  sin ;  and  secondly,  for  what  reasons 
h£is  it  been  permitted  ?  In  regard  to  the  first  point, 
the  New  Haven  divines  have  uniformly  maintained, 
that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action,  and  that 
men  are  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment,  only 
as  transgressors  of  known  law.  Dr.  Harvey  under- 
took to  controvert  this  position,  and  at  first  main- 
tained that  there  is  in  mankind,  back  of  all  moral 
action,  a  nature  which  is  the  cause  of  all  actual 
transgression,  and  is  itself  sinful.  He  afterwards 
explained  himself  to  mean,  that  this  sinful  nature 
is  the  voluntary  state  of  the  mind  in  which  man  is 
born,  and  is  itself  a  transgression  of  the  divine  law. 
Dr.  Tyler  at  first  maintained,  that  there  is  in  man 
a  native  propensity  to  evil  propagated  from  parent 
to  child,  like  other  natural  propensities.  He  after- 
wards explained  himself  to  mean,  that  '^  this  pro- 
pensity is  not  in  the  structure  of  the  mind,"  and 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  285 


Different  positions  respecting  the  nature  of  man. 

also  to  agree  with  Edwards,  that  mankind  come 
into  the  world  destitute  of  those  superior  principles 
with  which  Adam  was  created,  and  that  this  con- 
stitutes their  propensity  to  sin.  Dr.  Spring  main- 
tained that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action,  and 
that  mankind  are  born  into  the  world  with  moral 
dispositions  which  are  sinful,  and  an  essential  part 
of  the  soul's  existence.  Dr.  Woods  maintained, 
that  mankind  are  '^  born  in  a  state  of  moral  deprav- 
ity leading  to  certain  ruin ;  or  that  according  to  the 
common  laws  of  descent,  they  are  partakers  of  a 
corrupt  nature,  the  offspring  being  like  the  parent.'* 
This  statement  compared  with  what  he  had  writ- 
ten in  former  years,  ought  not  perhaps  to  be  under- 
stood as  asserting  any  thing  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine, "  that  all  sin  consists  in  volunt£iry  action,  and 
is  a  transgression  of  known  law."  This  doctrine 
it  is  believed,  the  great  body  of  New  England  di- 
vines at  the  present  day  fully  adopt.  So  did  Ed- 
wards and  the  old  Calvinists.  All  who  have  ever 
held  literally^  "  that  in  Adam's  fall  we  sinned  all," 
have  maintained,  in  the  language  of  the  Westmin- 
ster divines,  ''  that  we  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with 
him  in  his  first  transgression ;"  that  is,  we  trans- 
gressed in  his  act  the  divine  command,  and  are 
guilty  of  the  sin  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  The 
doctrine  of  the  New  Haven  divines  on  this  subject 
Is  denied  only  by  three  classes  of  theologians ; 


286  CONCLUDING     RE  iM  ARKS. 

Subordinate  inquiries. — What  is  the  nature  of  infants  : 


those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  a  physically  de- 
praved nature,  which  is  itself  sinful ;  those  who 
adopt  that  view  of  imputation,  which  regards  man- 
kind as  truly  and  properly  sinners  by  the  sin  of 
Adam,  without  personal  transgression ;  and  those 
who  maintain,  that  men  are  born  into  the  world 
with  a  voluntary  state  of  mind,  which,  without  any 
acts  of  choice  or  preference  in  view  of  a  known 
rule  of  duty,  involves  them  in  guilt  and  just  con- 
demnation. Out  of  the  discussions  on  the  nature 
of  sin,  sprung  several  subordinate  inquiries. 

1.  What  is  the  character  of  infants  ?  The  old 
divines  said  they  are  sinners  in  Adam,  and  as  soon 
as  they  are  capable  of  acting  morally,  they  trans- 
gress the  law  of  God,  and  become  actual  sinners. 
The  believers  in  physical  depravity  say,  they  are 
born  into  the  world,  with  constitutional  propensities 
intrinsically  sinful,  and  leading  directly  to  the  choice 
of  forbidden  objects ;  and  that  under  the  impulse  of 
these  sinful  desires  they  crave  sinful  indulgence, 
in  the  same  manner  that  they  crave  food  and  drink. 
Dr.  Spring  and  others  say,  they  are  created  with 
moral  qualities  no  less  than  with  natural  faculties, 
and  are  actual  transgressors  from  the  instant  of  birth. 
The  New  Haven  divines  say,  they  are  born  with 
such  a  nature,  that  they  sin  as  soon  as  they  are  ca- 
pable of  knowing  right  and  wrong,  which  is  at  a 
very  early  period  of  life,  and  if  not  at  its  commence* 


CONCLUDING     REMARItS.  287 

Certainly  that  mankind  will  become  sinners, 

ment,  the  time  intervening  between  birth  and  mor* 
al  agency  is  so  short,  as  to  claim  no  special  notice ; 
in  other  words  they  sin  as  soon  as  they  can  sin,  and 
it  is  not  important  to  know  the  precise  moment  of 
their  first  sinful  act.  But  how  can  infants  be  saved, 
it  was  asked,  if  they  are  not  born  into  the  world 
sinners  ?  By  the  redemption  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  was 
answered.  If  they  die  before  actual  transgression, 
they  may  through  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus, 
be  saved  from  the  consequences  of  belonging  to  a 
fallen  race,  and  be  made  holy.  Again  it  was  asked, 
why  do  they  die,  if  they  are  not  sinners  from,  their 
birth  ?  Why  do  they  die  before  they  are  born,  it 
was  asked  in  reply ;  and  why  do  animals  die  ? 
Death  does  not  in  all  cases  prove  sin.  Infants  Qiiay 
die,  because  they  belong  to  a  race  of  beings  who, 
in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  are  mortal. 

2.  Another  question  growing  out  of  the  discus- 
sion on  the  nature  of  sin  was,  if  all  sin  consists  in 
man's  own  act,  what  ground  of  certainty  is  there 
that  all  mankind  will  become  sinners  ?  To  this  it 
was  replied  :  Adam  was  created  a  moral  agent,  and 
sinned  through  temptation  presented  to  his  natural 
appetites  ;  and  man,  with  the  same  powers  and  fac- 
ulties, may  do  the  same,  even  though  there  were  no 
other  occasion.  But  though  the  human  soul  has 
the  same  powers  and  faculties  m  kind^  as  Adam 
had  in  a  state  of  innocency,  yet,  in  consequence  of 


288  CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

What  is  the  nature  of  regeneration. 

his  fall,  the  inferior  principles  of  our  nature  are 
much  more  susceptible  to  excitement  from  inferior 
objects,  than  in  him ;  and  this,  as  well  as  a  consti- 
tutional propensity  to  sin  for  its  own  sake,  may  fur- 
nish the  ground  of  certainty,  that  the  first  moral 
act  of  every  individual  of  our  race  will  be  sinful. 
Indeed  it  is  an  intuitive  truth,  that  the  cause  of  the 
first  sin  in  the  human  mind  cannot  itself  be  sin, 
nor  possess  any  moral  quality  whatever. 

3.  Another  question  arising  from  the  discussion 
on  the  nature  of  sin  was,  what  is  the  nature  of  re- 
generation ?  Dr.  Taylor  and  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines said,  that  regeneration,  when  the  term  is  used 
in  its  most  restricted  sense,  to  denote  the  change 
in  man,  is  a  moral  act,  consisting  in  a  transfer  of 
the  supreme  affections  from  the  world  to  God.  In 
a  more  general  sense,  it  includes  the  intellectual  per- 
ception and  comparison  of  the  two  objects  of  pref- 
erence, God  and  the  world,  which  are  necessary  to 
the  choice  of  God  as  the  portion  of  the  soul.  The 
sinner  uses  the  means  of  regeneration  only  in  the 
indivisible  moment,  while  he  so  compares  and  esti- 
mates the  two  objects,  that  his  supreme  affections 
are  given  to  God.  In  doing  this,  the  active  love  of 
the  world  is  suspended,  previous,  in  the  order  of 
time,  to  the  act  which  in  the  most  restricted  sense 
constitutes  regeneration.  This  change  in  man  is 
wrought  in  him  as  a  moral  being,  by  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  operating  on  his  mind. 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  289 


What  is  the  nature  of  regeneration. 


No,  says  Dr.  Tyler.  This  view  of  the  subject  is 
incorrect.  Sinners  never  use  the  means  of  regene- 
ration. The  active  love  of  the  world  is  never  sus- 
pended, till  the  heart  is  changed.  If  it  were,  the 
sinner  would  then  be  in  a  state  of  neutrality„  If 
this  is  a  true  account  of  the  subject,  regeneration  is 
a  progressive  change  ;  is  man's  own  work  ;  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  only  applies  the  truth  to  the  mind  by 
way  of  moral  suasion.  Say  the  believers  in  phys- 
ical depravity,  God  performs  an  act  of  creation  in 
renewing  the  sinner,  as  much  as  when  he  brought 
the  soul  into  existence.  To  consider  the  change  in 
regeneration  an  act  of  the  sinner,  the  mere  choice 
of  his  mind,  is  to  deny  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit's 
operations,  and  is  heretical.  There  must  be  an  act 
of  divine  efficiency,  in  which  God  by  his  physical 
omnipotence  changes  the  nature  and  constitution  of 
the  soul. 

Thus  the  whole  debate  respecting  the  nature  of 
sin,  might  be  resolved  into  the  question,  what  is  a 
moral  agent  ?  Is  he  a  being,  capable  of  thinking, 
feeling  and  choosing  ?  Is  he  endued  with  such 
faculties,  that  he  is  capable  of  knowing  right  and 
wrong,  and  choosing  between  them,  i.  e.  of  making 
either  a  right  or  wrong  choice  ?  Do  all  men,  wheth- 
er sinful  or  holy,  as  moral  agents,  have  the  same 
nature  in  kind,  that  is,  are  they  created  with  the 
same  natural  faculties,  irrespective  of  the  manner 
25 


290  CONCLUDING     REMARKS. 


The  turning  point  of  the  controversy. — Second  point  of  inquiry. 

in  which  they  afterwards  use  them  ?  Is  it  the  ex- 
erting of  these  faculties  in  wrong  acts  of  choice  or 
preference,  with  the  knowledge  that  they  are 
wrong,  and  with  the  power  to  do  otherwise,  that 
constitutes  a  moral  agent  a  sinner  ?  Is  it  the  be- 
ginning to  use  these  faculties  aright,  that  consti- 
tutes his  turning  to  God  ;  in  other  words,  is  it  the 
preferring  of  God  to  the  world,  the  loving  of  him 
supremely,  with  the  faculties  which  he  has  given, 
that  constitutes  the  change  in  regeneration  ?  and 
has  a  moral  agent  power  in  all  circumstances,  and 
under  all  influences,  to  choose  right  or  wrong  ?  Let 
these  questions  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and 
let  this  view  of  moral  agency  be  carried  out  into  all 
its  relations  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel ;  and 
physical  depravity,  and  physical  regeneration,  and 
the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  to  his 
posterity,  their  acting  in  his  act,  and  the  modern 
dogma  of  created  voluntary  transgression  in  the 
state  of  the  will  with  which  mankind  are  born, 
can  no  longer  have  place  among  the  doctrines  of 
the  church ;  much  less,  be  set  up  as  tests  of  ortho- 
doxy. 

The  second  point  of  inquiry  in  the  late  theo- 
logical controversy  was,  for  what  reason  was  sin 
permitted  ? 

That  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  and  that  God  prefers  it  on  the  whole  to  holi- 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  291 

Second  point  of  inquiry. 

ness  in  its  stead,  says  Dr.  Taylor,  are  groundless 
assumptions.  Dr.  Woods  and  others  say,  that  they 
do  not  pretend  to  tell  the  reasons  why  God  decreed 
sin ;  yet  they  argue  to  prove  that  the  present  sys- 
tem is  the  best  conceivable,  and  that  the  degree  of 
sin  that  exists,  is  preferred  by  God  as  a  means  of 
the  greatest  good. 

To  furnish  a  resting  place  to  the  mind,  and  to 
meet  the  objections  of  the  infidel.  Dr.  Taylor  sug- 
gested the  theory,  that  the  reason  of  the  divine  per- 
mission of  sin  may  Z>e,  that  it  is  incidental,  in  respect 
to  divine  prevention,  to  the  best  system  possible  to 
God,  and  that  he  purposes  it,  not  in  preference  to 
holiness  in  its  stead,  but  in  preference  to  the  non- 
existence of  the  best  system.  Dr.  Fitch  advocated 
this  view  of  the  subject  in  an  article  in  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  in  which  he  maintained,  that  the 
evils  that  exist  in  the  moral  universe  may  arise 
from  the  nature  of  the  moral  universe  itself ;  and 
he  adduced  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  such  a  sup- 
position.* Such  a  theory,  said  their  opponents, 
limits  the  power  of  God.  It  makes  him  desirous 
of  preventing  sin,  but  unable  to  prevent  it.  God 
has  complete  control  over  every  creature,  and  can 
keep  all  his  subjects  from  sinning,  and  bring  all 
sinners  to  repentance.     They  go  on  to  charge  the 

*  Vol.  iv.  (Quarterly  Series,)  p.  614. 


292  CONCLUDING     REMARKS. 

How  does  God  govern  the  moral  universe  ? 

New  Haven  divines  as  teaching  for  truth,  what 
they  only  suggested  as  a  probable  solution  of  a  dif- 
ficulty, and  deduce  many  alarming  consequences 
from  their  theory. 

Out  of  this  inquiry  respecting  the  reasons  of  the 
permission  of  sin,  sprung  others. 

1.  One  was,  the  same  as  that  which  lay  at  the 
foundation  of  the  inquiry  respecting  the  nature  of 
sin,  viz.  what  is  the  nature  of  a  moral  agent?  He 
is  one,  say  the  New  Haven  divines,  who  has  in  all 
possible  circumstances  the  power  of  choice.  This 
definition,  some  thought,  denied  the  power  of  God 
to  control  moral  agents,  overthrew  the  doctrine  of 
irresistible  grace,  and  made  man  independent  of  his 
Maker.  Others  said  it  was  the  old  Arminian  doc- 
trine revived,  of  a  self-determining  power  of  the 
will. 

2.  Another  question  agitated  was,  in  what  man- 
ner does  God  govern  a  moral  universe  ?  Not  by 
physical  omnipotence,  say  the  New  Haven  divines, 
but  by  an  influence  consistent  with  moral  agency, 
leaving  the  mind  free  to  act  otherwise.  This  their 
opponents  thought  was  the  doctrine  of  moral  sua- 
sion, and  left  it  uncertain  to  the  divine  mind, 
whether  he  could  keep  any  in  holiness,  or  secure 
the  perseverance  of  the  saints. 

3.  Another  inquiry  was,  is  not  God  disappointed 
and  unhappy  in  the  results  of  his  moral  universe  ? 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  293 

How  the  New  Haven  divines  were  treated. 

Some  said  he  cannot  do  all  the  good  he  would,  and 
must  therefore  be  unhappy.  Dr.  Tyler  said,  He 
cannot  accomplish  his  decrees  and  do  all  his  pleas- 
ure. The  New  Haven  divines  said,  He  foresaw 
and  purposed  all  things  from  eternity,  and  is  not 
disappointed  in  the  result,  but  infinitely  blessed 
in  his  infinite  beneficence ;  whilst  he  is  indeed 
"  grieved,"  with  the  transgression  of  his  law,  and 
desires  that  all  sinners  should  come  to  repentance 
rather  than  continue  in  sin.  Thus  the  theory  sug- 
gested as  a  possible  mode  of  accounting  for  the  per- 
mission of  sin,  was  carried  out  in  the  discussion, 
through  the  principal  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  in  a 
manner  to  awaken  great  alarm  lest  the  whole  fabric 
of  Calvinism  should  be  subverted.  Inconsistencies 
were  charged  on  the  New  Haven  divines.  It  was 
asserted  that  they  had  departed  from  the  standard 
theological  writers  of  New  England ;  and  when 
they  attempted  to  shew  their  agreement  with  them, 
in  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Calvin istic  sys- 
tem, they  were  suspected  of  insincerity  and  accu- 
sed of  self-contradiction.  They  complained  that 
they  were  misrepresented  ;  but  they  were  charged 
with  unintelligibleness  in  their  writings.  They 
claimed  that  their  opponents  abandoned  their  ori- 
ginal positions,  and  came  to  that  ground  on  which 
there  was  a  virtual  agreement ;  and  they  were 
charged  with  departing  from  their  own  ground,  or 
25* 


294  CONCLUDING     REMARKS. 

Wonderful  results  of  the  controversy. — Misapprehension  a  cause. 

with  insincerity.  Their  doctrines  were  continually 
misstated ;  they  were  charged  with  errors  which 
they  solemnly  disclaimed  ;  they  were  branded  with 
names  of  Arminian,  Pelagian,  and  Unitarian,  and 
ranked  with  those  who  had  been  foremost  in  op- 
position to  ''orthodoxy." 

Under  such  circumstances,  it  is  wonderful  that 
the  ''New  Haven  speculations"  have  prevailed, 
in  so  short  a  time,  to  such  an  extent  as  to  require 
for  their  suppression,  a  new  theological  institution 
in  the  state  of  Connecticut ;  the  union  of  a  party 
in  New  England  with  the  Old  School  party  in  the 
Presb^T'terian  church ;  and  the  revolutionary  and 
violent  proceedings  of  the  majority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1837.  Especially  is  it  wonderful 
that  such  results  should  have  taken  place,  from  the 
discussion  of  the  question,  what  is  the  nature  of 
sin  and  why  is  it  permitted,  when  all  parties  in 
the  controversy  are  agreed,  in  all  the  important  ar- 
ticles of  the  Calvinistic  creed.  Yet  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  that  even  the  measures  of  the  memorable 
Assembly  of  1837,  owe  their  origin  and  result  to 
the  controversies  in  Connecticut,  more  than  to  any 
other  single  cause ;  and  that  they  who  formerly 
condemned  Hopkinsianism,  are  now  arranged  in  a 
party,  which  receives  its  chief  countenance  and 
sympathy  in  New  England,  from  Hopkinsians  of 
the  highest  school ;  while  they  whose  heresy  is  an 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  295 

The  restoration  of  confidence. 

object  of  alarm,  agree  much  more  nearly  than  their 
opponents,  with  the  old  Calvinists.*  These  won- 
ders must  be  accounted  for,  in  part,  on  the  ground 
of  the  misapprehensions  which  prevail  in  a  portion 
of  the  Presbyterian  church,  respecting  the  doctrines 
of  the  New  Haven  school.  The  removal  of  mis- 
apprehensions has  greatly  promoted  harmony  and 
confidence  in  New  England,  and  will  no  doubt  one 
day,  do  it  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  whatever 
may  be  the  issue  of  the  present  conflict. 

If  men  of  all  parties  would  pause  and  with  the 
humility  of  little  children  inquire  what  is  truth,  in- 
stead of  asking  who  shall  be  greatest ;  if  in  all  their 
theological  differences  they  would  be  careful  to 
ascertain  the  exact  sentiments  of  those  from  whom 
they  differ ;  and  would  acknowledge  as  truth,  all 
that  they  regard  as  such,  instead  of  setting  them- 
selves about  convicting  their  opponents  of  heresy 
on  trivial  grounds ;  then  theological  controversy 
would  not  so  often  result  in  the  alienation  of  the 

*  So  far  as  "New  Haven  Theology"  differs  from  the  New- 
England  Theology,  which  Presbyterians  used  to  call  Hopkin- 
sianism,  it  approaches  towards  old  Calvinism.  Hopkinsian  dis- 
interestedness,— God's  efficiency  in  the  production  of  sin, — con- 
created  actual  sin, — sin  the  necessary  means, — on  all  these  points 
the  New  Haven  divines  depart  from  Hopkins  towards  Calvin  and 
the  Westminster  divines.  The  Hopkinsians  say  that  infants  suf- 
fer and  die  because  of  their  own  personal  sin ;  New  Haven  and 
Princeton  agree  in  saying  that  it  is  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin. 


296  CONCLUDING     REMARKS. 

Suggestion  to  the  Congregational  churches. 

parties,  and  in  unhappy  contentions  and  divisions 
in  the  churches.  The  ministers  of  Whitefield's 
day,  in  too  many  instances  learned  wisdom  when  it 
was  too  late  to  retrieve  their  errors ;  the  churches 
of  Connecticut  have  bought  it  at  too  high  a  price, 
in  the  experience  which  they  have  gained  as  the 
result  of  their  late  theological  discussions  ;  and  there 
is  great  reeison  to  apprehend,  that  such  will  unhap- 
pily be  the  result,  in  regard  to  the  church  which  is 
now  agitated  with  party  strife  and  revolutionary 
movements.  May  God,  in  his  providence,  avert 
the  final  catastrophe  of  disunion. 

Let  the  Congregational  churches  of  New  Eng- 
land, from  the  experience  of  the  past,  learn  not  to 
give  countenance  to  rumors  of  heresy,  in  regard  to 
those  who  hold  and  teach  the  great  doctrines  on 
which  their  faith  is  founded.  Though  some  in  the 
ministry,  should  charge  their  brethren  with  radical 
error,  on  the  ground  that  their  theories  subvert  the 
doctrines  of  grace ;  and  should  adduce  arguments 
to  prove  that  "  certain  speculations,"  if  carried  out 
into  their  legitimate  consequences,  would  remove 
the  ancient  landmarks ;  let  them  not  indulge  suspi- 
cion, till  they  see  some  evidence  of  actual  defec- 
tion from  the  faith.  Let  them  endeavor  to  discrim- 
inate between  the  real  sentiments  of  the  accused, 
and  the  interpretation  and  inferences  of  those  who 
are  enlisted  in  controversy.     If  ''  the  speculations" 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS.  297 

Suggestions  to  the  younger  ministers. 

in  question  are  too  abstruse  to  be  understood  by 
them,  though  the  doctrines  are  famiUar  which  it  is 
claimed  they  subvert ;  let  them  feel  safe  in  the  as- 
surance, that  heresy  always  relates  to  a  denial  of 
doctrines,  and  not  to  the  mere  philosophical  theories 
which  are  adopted  as  modes  of  explanation. 

Finally,  let  those  who  are  young  in  the  min- 
istry, lay  it  down  as  a  principle  to  be  adhered  to 
during  their  whole  life,  that  they  will  receive  truth 
from  whatever  source  it  may  be  derived,  and  how- 
ever much  at  variance  with  pre-conceived  opinions. 
Let  them  plant  their  feet  upon  that  sure  foundation 
of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  the  word  of  God,  and 
attach  no  undue  importance  to  creeds  and  confes- 
sions, and  the  commandments  of  men.  Let  them 
prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good,  and 
contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints  ;  but  let  them  not  imagine  that  all  who  dif- 
fer from  them,  in  philosophical  opinions  and  theo- 
ries, are  heretical,  or  laboring  to  bring  a  flood  of  er- 
ror upon  the  churches.  Then  may  charity,  and 
brotherly  love,  and  confidence  unite  their  hearts, 
and  the  kingdom  of  our  Redeemer,  through  their 
instrumentality,  be  greatly  advanced. 


31 


APPENDIX. 


LIST    OF    PUBLICATIONS    ON    THE    UNITARIAN    CONTROVERSY. 


Sermon  at  the  Ordination  of  Jared  Sparks.  By  Wm.  E.  Chan- 
ning.     Baltimore,  1819,  pp-  63. 

Letters  to  Dr.  Channing.  By  Moses  Stuart.  Andover,  1819, 
pp.  180. 

Letters  to  Unitarians.     By  Leonard  Woods. 

Letters  to  Trinitarians  and  Calvinists.  By  Henry  Ware.  Cam- 
bridge, 1820,  pp.  150. 

Reply  to  Dr.  Ware.     By  Dr.  Woods. 

Answer  to  Dr.  Woods's  Reply.  By  Dr.  Ware.  Cambridge, 
1822,  pp.  163. 

Letters,  Reply  and  Remarks  on  Dr.  Ware's  answer.  By  Dr. 
Woods.     Second  Edition,  Andover,  1822,  pp.  351. 

Thoughts  on  true  and  false  religion.  By  Andrews  Norton. 
Christian  Disciple,  Sept.  and  Oct.  1820,  pp.  337;  also  separately. 

Review  of  Erskine  and  Norton.  By  Matthew  R.  Dutton. 
Christian  Spectator,  May  and  June,  1822,  p.  301.  See  also,  pp. 
445,667. 

Views  of  Calvinism.  By  Prof  Norton.  Christian  Disciple, 
1822,  p.  224  ;  also  separately. 

Review  of  Norton's  Views  of  Calvinism.  By  Nathaniel  W. 
Taylor.     Christian  Spectator,  1823,  p.  196 ;  also  separately. 

Review  of  Christian  Spectator,  probably  by  Rev.  Mr.  Walker. 
Christian  Disciple,  1823,  p.  230. 

Review  of  Christian  Disciple.  By  Dr.  Taylor,  Christian  Spec- 
tator, 1824,  pp.  310,  360. 

Hints  on  Sin  and  Free  Agency.  By  Prof.  Stuart.  Christian 
Spectator,  1824,  p.  97. 

Edwards's  views  of  Original  Sin.  By  Dr.  Taylor.  Christian 
Spectator,  1824,  p.  567. 


APPENDIX.  299 


LIST    OF    PUBLICATIONS    ON    THE    NEW    HAVEN    CONTROVERSY. 


Two  discourses  on  the  Nature  of  Sin.  By  Eleazar  T.  Fitch. 
New  Haven,  1826,  pp.  46. 

Reply  to  the  Churchman's  Magazine.  By  Prof.  Fitch.  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  1827,  p.  17. 

Review  of  Fitch's  discourses.  By  Dr.  Alexander  or  Dr.  Green. 
Christian  Advocate,  March  and  April,  1837,  pp.  136,  162. 

Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  Sin.  By  Prof.  Fitch.  New  Haven, 
1837,  pp.  95. 

Concio  ad  Clerum.    By  Dr.  Taylor.    New  Haven,  1828,  pp.  38. 

Review  of  Concio.   By  Joseph  Harvey.    Hartford,  1829,  pp.  40. 

Review  of  Taylor  and  Harvey.  Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p. 
343. 

Examination  of  the  Review.  By  Mr.  Harvey.  Hartford,  1829. 
pp.  53. 

Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  Sin  as  exhibited  in  Dr.  Dwight's 
Theology,  with  a  notice  of  Mr.  Harvey's  last  pamphlet.  By  Dr. 
Taylor.     New  Haven,  1829,  pp.  43. 

Dissertation  on  the  Means  of  Regeneration.  By  Gardiner 
Spring,  1827,  pp.  50. 

Review  of  Spring  on  the  Means  of  Regeneration.  By  Dr.  Tay- 
lor.    Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp.  1,  209,  481,  691. 

Strictures  on  the  Review.  By  Bennet  Tyler.  Portland,  1829, 
pp.  64. 

Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  Strictures.  By  Dr.  Taylor.  Christian 
Spectator,  1830,  p.  147. 

Vindication  of  the  Strictures.  By  Dr.  Tyler.  Portland,  1830 
pp.  63. 

Brief  notice  of  the  Vindication.  By  Prof.  C.  A.  Goodrich 
Christian  Spectator,  1830,  p.  380. 

Letters  to  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  D.  D.  By  Dr.  Woods.  An 
dover,  1830,  pp.  114. 

Review  of  Woods's  Letters.  By  Dr.  Taylor.  Christian  Spec 
lator,  J  830,  p.  540. 

Review  of  Fisk  on  Predestination  and  Election.  By  Prof. 
Fitch.     Christian  Spectator,  1831,  p.  597. 

Divine  Permission  of  Sin.  By  Prof  Fitch.  Christian  Spec 
tator,  1832,  p.  614. 

Divine  Permission  of  Sin,  probably  by  Dr.  Tyler.  Evangelical 
Magazine,  June,  1833,  p.  433;  July,  1833,  p.  1. 

Correspondence  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Hawes.  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  1832,  p.  171;  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  1832,  p.  173; 
also  separately. 

Remarks  on  Dr.  Taylor's  Letter  to  Dr.  Hawes.  By  Dr.  Tyler. 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  1832,  p.  325 ;  also  separately.  Boston, 
1832,  pp.  12. 


300  APPENDIX. 

Reply  to  Dr.  Tyler's  Remarks.  By  Dr.  Taylor.  Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims,  1832,  p.  425;  also  separately.     Boston,  1832,  pp.  24. 

Second  Article  or  Rejoinder.  By  Dr.  Tyler.  Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims,  1832,  pp.  508,  545. 

Second  Reply.  By  Dr.  Taylor.  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  1832, 
p.  669;  do.  1833,  pp.  5,  65. 

Letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims.  By  Dr.  Ty- 
ler, p.  2S4 ;  also  separately,  with  remarks  on  an  article  in  the 
Christian  Spectator.     Portland,  1833,  pp.  40. 

Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  Remarks  and  Dr.  Taylor's  Reply.  By 
Dr.  Taylor,  Christian  Spectator,  1832,  p.  456. 

Letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Christian  Spectator.  By  Dr.  Taylor. 
Christian  Spectator,  1833,  p.  448. 

The  real  difference  between  the  New  Haven  divines  and  those 
who  oppose  them.  By  Samuel  R.  Andrew.  Christian  Spectator, 
1833,  657. 

Letters  on  the  present  state  and  probable  results  of  Theologi- 
cal   Speculations   in   Connecticut.     Attributed   to   Dr.   Harvey. 

1832,  pp.  44. 

Address  to  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Connecticut.  By 
the  same.     Hartford,  1833,  pp.  58. 

Letters  from  Aristarchus  to  Philemon.  By  Chauncey  Lee. 
Hartford,  1833,  pp.  221. 

Review  of  Dr.  Lee's  Letters.     Evangelical  Magazine,  April, 

1833,  p.  375. 

Divine  Efficiency.  By  Edward  D.  Griffin.  New  York  and 
Boston,  1833,  pp.  221. 

The  Causal  Power  in  Regeneration,  direct  upon  the  mind. 
By  Dr.  Griffin,  pp.  26. 

Review  of  Divine  Efficiency  and  Causal  Power.  Evangelical 
Magazine,  Dec.  1835,  p.  252. 

Dissertation  on  Native  Depravity.  By  Dr.  Spring.  New  York, 
1833. 

Review  of  Spring  on  Native  Depravity.  By  Dr.  Taylor. 
Christian  Spectator,  1833,  p.  314  ;  Evangelical  Magazine,  July, 
Aug.  and  Sept.,  1833,  pp.  34,  63,  123.  See  also,  a  pamphlet 
published  in  New  York  and  recommended  by  Dr.  Brownlee,  in 
which  Dr.  Spring's  opinions  are  handled  rather  roughly. 

Essay  on  Native  Depravity.  By  Dr.  Woods.  Boston,  1835, 
pp.  230. 

Review  of  Woods  on  Native  Depravity.  Evangelical  Maga- 
zine, Nov.,  1835,  p.  209. 

Letters  on  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  New  Haven  Theology. 
By  Dr.  Tyler.     New  York,  1837,  pp.  180. 

Views  in  Theology.  By  David  N.  Lord,  passim,  if  any  per- 
son is  disposed  to  consult  them. 


i> 


938.21 
C87 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  ^ 

0035520027 


BRITTLE  DO  Npl! 
PHOTOCOPY  '. 


/\PR  ^-  ijoo 


